@Philokalia
So you are assuming Putin is rational. Good luck with that one. Putin could care less a third of a MILLION Russian soldiers have already died in Ukraine and more die daily because they get SHYTE in the way of weapons and even food, they get 20 year old rations full of mold they are expected to eat in the battlefield.
That plus the top down style of command in Russia means when a general is killed as they have been, quite a number of them, the lower ranks don't know what to do so they run off with poor military strategy and get killed by the thousands because of such shyte poor training.
But that said, that would not deter a frothing at the mouth dictator with eyes on rebuilding the Soviet empire at any cost and if it takes nukes to do that he WILL use nukes.
Of course I am just a paranoid American since you feel Putin is just a misunderstood person who has the heart of Russia at heart at all times and will do anything to help out the poor folks in Russia.
@metal-brain saidWatch the news every once in a while.
@shavixmir
Russia? What is your source of information?
No, not Fox, OAN or NewsMax. Real news.
@metal-brain saidAnd you're an idiot.
@Ponderable
Trump saying that seems like he is pro NATO to me. He just wants them to pay up and buy weapons from us. Trump is puppet of the military industrial complex. When he says pay their share he means buying weapons from the USA.
Trump is a NATO Nazi. He wants to force them to pay, but I am sure the elites support him on that. They are fascists.
@metal-brain saidStop saying that.
What is your source of information?
No, first, pull your head out. THEN, stop saying that.
3 edits
@vivify saidFor sure the US is the central core of NATO and by far the biggest single military power on the planet and without the alliance Europe is looking much more vulnerable, especially the Baltic states, Putin has always claimed an obligation to Russian speaking citizens in those states and they will be the basis of his tissue thin excuse for an invasion.
Two years ago I would've disagreed.
The U.S. is the most powerful member of NATO and by far the largest financial contributor. My opinion was the U.S. leaving would cause a domino effect of other nations exiting the alliance.
However, the addition of both Finland and Sweden are huge (though I'm not sure they would've joined had the U.S. left).
NATO will be just f ...[text shortened]... both hate the U.S. (as well as the entire Arab world). We have too many enemies to risk losing NATO.
The biggest loss to NATO is the US nuclear umbrella but the UK and more so France have enough nukes to ensure massive damage to Russias major cities if they are prepared to deploy them in defence of those border states. In terms of a conventional clash between Russia and Europe west of Ukraine I don’t think Russia has a hope in hell of advancing beyond Ukraine but Europe needs to seriously rearm like yesterday
As you say the inclusion of Sweden and Finland is massive especially for the defence of those Baltic states
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidRussia now has the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, surpassing the U.S.
The biggest loss to NATO is the US nuclear umbrella but the UK and more so France have enough nukes to ensure massive damage to Russias major cities if they are prepared to deploy them in defence of those border states.
Excluding America, Russia has more than twice the nukes of the rest of the world combined. Putin could strike every country in Europe more than 100 times over.
Europe would need a quick and very well-targeted attack against such a monster.
@shavixmir saidOh that cad, Donald!! 😀
trump has invited Russia to attack NATO members not paying the full amount agreed on (2% GDP).
trump is a moron.
1 edit
@vivify saidvivify said - My opinion was the U.S. leaving would cause a domino effect of other nations exiting the alliance.
Two years ago I would've disagreed.
The U.S. is the most powerful member of NATO and by far the largest financial contributor. My opinion was the U.S. leaving would cause a domino effect of other nations exiting the alliance.
However, the addition of both Finland and Sweden are huge (though I'm not sure they would've joined had the U.S. left).
NATO will be just f ...[text shortened]... both hate the U.S. (as well as the entire Arab world). We have too many enemies to risk losing NATO.
I can see that as being possible, of course. I think that NATO has been looked upon favorably because
they get the level of military protection that they enjoy but at a reduced rate due to USA subsidy.
Take that reduced rate away and some countries already being taxed by EU will opt out. My opinion.
As far as I am concerned, the USA should get out of NATO because the USSR no longer is a threat to the US.
And also, the EU should take over the administration of NATO, as services are currently being duplicated.
@earl-of-trumps saidNATO wasn't formed because of the threat to the U.S. but because of the threat to Europe.
As far as I am concerned, the USA should get out of NATO because the USSR no longer is a threat to the US.
The U.S. opposed Russia because of communism, not national security.
@shavixmir saidyou are a "pearl clutcher" herein described...
trump has invited Russia to attack NATO members not paying the full amount agreed on (2% GDP).
trump is a moron.
"
Skirting around the praise of Trump’s previous rounds of tough talk about NATO funding from the alliance’s boss, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who previously praised Trump’s strategy towards European delinquency — which others decried as “damaging” — the Times report stated that “defence budgets across the continent have gone up quite a bit since the last Trump presidency”, making clear that many behind closed doors realise Trump is, in fact, right and that his efforts had actually made the alliance stronger.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/02/12/european-leaders-take-trump-nato-comments-seriously-but-not-literally-times-of-london/
@sonhouse
But that said, that would not deter a frothing at the mouth dictator with eyes on rebuilding the Soviet empire at any cost
------------------------------------
tell me...
if Putin is so interested in kick-starting a new USSR why doesn't he start with nations that would be so easy,
such as Belarus, and the three Baltic nations. that would give him 4 to start.
@vivify saidIf he USSR defeated Europe it would be too powerful for the US to challenge so there was a long term threat to the USA
NATO wasn't formed because of the threat to the U.S. but because of the threat to Europe.
The U.S. opposed Russia because of communism, not national security.
@vivify saidBut if the other side has enough to kill you all the rest are superfluous phallic extensions
Russia now has the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, surpassing the U.S.
Excluding America, Russia has more than twice the nukes of the rest of the world combined. Putin could strike every country in Europe more than 100 times over.
Europe would need a quick and very well-targeted attack against such a monster.
@athousandyoung saidI think isolationists are forgetting how much there presence in Europe allows them to project power across the middle and Near East
If he USSR defeated Europe it would be too powerful for the US to challenge so there was a long term threat to the USA
If you isolate yourself you ipso facto become less able to defend yourself, there is more to Europe than military power. As it stands europe generally backs up the US on the diplomatic and economic front.
You’re in danger of letting a narcissistic geopolitical half wit lead you into the weeds.
China will also be rubbing its hands and it has no designs on Europe other than displacing the US as its main trading partner and it becoming diplomatically and militarily neutral in the battle of the super powers
3 edits
@kevcvs57 saidThat depends on how capable their missile defense systems are. It's doubtful that the eastern bloc nations have anti-missile defenses as sophisticated as Russia's.
But if the other side has enough to kill you all the rest are superfluous phallic extensions
Unless France and the U.K. have nukes elsewhere, like a base in another country or nuclear submarines (I have no idea if they do) Russia only needs to worry about nuclear warheads coming from France and the U.K.
Assuming no other launch locations, Russia just has to be able to shoot down about 300 missiles coming from two locations thousands of miles away, that must traverse an entire continent. Meanwhile, Russia can decimate the entire Eastern block.
It would only take a handful of nukes to get most NATO nations to surrender.
But that's only in a scenario where the U.S. has left NATO,