18 hours ago, rabas said:

 

If you can precisely define 'threat' I will be happy to. 

If this is your stance, I can see that we won’t get anywhere with discussing this further.

18 hours ago, rabas said:

Let my bypass your military analysis as Putin's attempt to topple Kiev now lives in infamy widely recorded everywhere and broadly analyzed. [ref].

 

Not sure what Putin means by initialing. Usually, negotiators initialing documents does not signify agreement and can mean as little as these are the words discussed (official copy). Anyway, the negotiators don't usually sign agreements into effect. 

 

Proof: [ref] Lead negotiator Davyd Arakhamia stated in an interview on 24 November 2023 that in March 2022 the Russian delegation had promised Ukraine peace for refusing to join NATO, but that Russia had not given any security guarantees and the Ukrainian delegation did not trust Russia to uphold such an agreement.^[77][79][80] Arakhamia also refuted Putin's claim that Ukraine had signed any agreement in Turkey because the delegation did not even have the legal right to sign anything.

 

So, Putin misinfo again.

 

I just want to address your first point. It is widely accepted by both sides that the current Russian force of about 50,000 troops is insufficient to takeover Kharkiv, Ukraine’s 2nd biggest city. Did you honestly think that Russia attempted to takeover Kiev with just 40,000 troops? Or was it more a considered threat to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table? Which it did, incidentally.

18 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I can understand that Russia might perceive that to be the case but your easy question throws up numerous supplementaries. 

 

Does that perception justify Russia invading Ukraine? Should sovereign countries - such as Ukraine - be prevented from pursuing actions, which they consider to be in their best interests, in order to satisfy Russian sensitivities? Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Poland (with Kalingrad) share land borders and a host of countries share Black sea borders with Russia: Should these countries have been prevented from joining NATO? Should they now be forced to leave NATO? Do you think that Russia would be justified in invading any of these countries because of their perceived threat?

I take it that you agree in principle but with certain caveats.

The supplementaries you bring up sounds good in theory but as you well know, is a lot more complicated in real life. For eg, do you consider Cuba a sovereign country? If so, do they have the right to defend themselves? If so, do they have the right to choose their ally? I’m sure you know where I’m going with this. China will not set up a base in Cuba because this would be widely seen (although justified) as being provocative. That’s why diplomacy exists.

Ukraine had a pro-Russian government prior to 2014. Was the US right to interfere in Ukraine’s internal affairs? Before you deny this, think what could be a valid reason for US state officials, notably Nuland, to be there handing out cookies?

What was the FM of Lithuania, I think, Landsbergis or something like that, doing, addressing protesters in Georgia recently? Isn’t this interference, a clear violation of UN regulations?

21 hours ago, Mavideol said:

that should have been done long, very long time ago

 

US working with EU to counter China on its Russia support, overcapacity, say Antony Blinken and Janet Yellen

https://au.yahoo.com/finance/news/us-working-eu-counter-china-093000271.html

 

Personally, I would love to see the US and EU completely decouple from China. I recently read somewhere that something like 40% of US exports actually rely on imported goods, a lot of which comes from China.

China is the top trading partner for over 120 countries worldwide. In an all out trade war, China will suffer less than the U.S. But sadly, the Chinese government is very patient and farsighted. They know that the current trajectory will slowly but surely chip away at the US hegemony without causing themselves too much pain. They dumped 53 billion dollars of bonds in the 1st quarter of 2024, the highest ever. 
 

If I was more cynical, I would think that the Chinese government is actually playing the game of death by a thousand cuts with the collective west.

20 hours ago, Mavideol said:

but Xi keeps insisting they are "neutral"

 

Lethal equipment flown from China to Russia for use in Ukraine, says Shapps

 

https://au.yahoo.com/news/lethal-equipment-flown-china-russia-095918429.html

 

 

I have it on good authority that China is exporting hundreds of thousands of the latest, most technologically advanced dual use shovels to Russia. It has a brand new design, ergonomic handles and reinforced steel shafts to minimise bending when hit on a hard object, like a helmet.

When asked, the spokesman said, we are only one minor, inconsequential country supplying our latest innovation to our partner whilst there are over 40 countries supplying theirs to the other side.

22 hours ago, Wobblybob said:

 This is my last post on this subject

I woke up to a wet and overcast morning but the sun immediately broke through the clouds when I saw this post.

21 hours ago, Wobblybob said:

He has lied and is too dishonest to admit it. 🥴

Alas, it’s overcast again. ‘‘Twas but a lie. I should have guessed.

8 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

He  has already proved that with his self descriptive insults but not necessarily the understanding of topics and that when "in a whole stop digging"!

It’s hole, not whole. Guess English isn’t your first language after all.

37 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

NO!

No NATO country is a threat to Russia  unless Russia invades a NATO country!

So since Russia didn’t invade any NATO country, it isn’t a threat to NATO, right?

So what’s all these NATO generals and European leaders warnings about a Russian threat to NATO?

2 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Without Russia there wouldn't be NATO, it is not difficult for most to understand! 

Totally clueless. 
 

NATO’s new Asia-Pacific mission is remarkable for several reasons. When the alliance was formed in 1949 amid the looming post-war threat posed by the Soviet Union, it had a clear-cut purpose: protect Western Europe from the threat of Soviet expansionism. Once the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, NATO lost its raison d’être. Expanding to Central and Eastern Europe was no longer an obstacle, and the alliance has nearly doubled in size from its Cold War peak. With its geopolitical adversary dead and buried, NATO increasingly looked outside of Europe, in places like Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq, to maintain relevance.

https://time.com/6294499/nato-summit-vilnius-asia/

5 minutes ago, transam said:

At least you didn't write that in Russian BIG letters................🤔

You remind me of some blue collared workers I encountered back in ol’ Blighty. Didn’t give them the time of day. Good policy then, reinstated as of now.

4 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

As for your second link did you bother to read that in any detail?

Obviously not as you missed this little gem from it;

 

"Courtesy of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s disastrous invasion of Ukraine, NATO has re-discovered its original purpose: the collective defense of its member states on the European continent. NATO approved new defense plans this week for the first time since the end of the Cold War. Enhancing deterrence against a near-peer rival in Russia is now NATO’s first, second, and third priority."

It seems like English isn’t your first language. Or maybe it’s your comprehension that is the issue.

We were (or I was, at any rate) talking about NATO expansion and not why they were expanding.

If you still want to hold on to the fallacy that Nato merely considers applications without seeking new members, be my guest. 

3 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

The word "expansion" in the link is not mentioned in the article!

Dis you bother to read it
 

This is the main thrust of the article;

""NATO should welcome Georgia and Ukraine into the membership action plan, and NATO membership must remain open to all of Europe's democracies that seek it," the president said."

Note the last four words "democracies that seek it"!

Title of article:

Bush Calls for NATO Expansion at His Last Summit

Is English your first language? It isn’t mine but I understand it enough to know the meaning of an article.

4 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Insults are not required in a proper discussion but if you are going to make them I assume that you are describing yourself!

Assume away..

13 hours ago, In the jungle said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/21/electric-cars-more-likely-to-hit-pedestrians-than-petrol-vehicles-study-finds

 

"Hybrid and electric cars are more likely to strike pedestrians than petrol or diesel vehicles, particularly in towns and cities, according to an analysis of British road traffic accidents.

 

Data from 32bn miles of battery-powered car travel and 3tn miles of petrol and diesel car trips showed that mile-for-mile electric and hybrid cars were twice as likely to hit pedestrians than fossil fuel-powered cars, and three times more likely to do so in urban areas."

I didn’t realise that hybrids and EVs have a mind of their own. Are they rundown anti-EVers for fun?

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Sigh… you really lack mental acuity if you can’t see the difference between the two.

 

Oh the irony............

You prove once again you don’t have the intellectual capacity to be taken seriously.

19 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

NATO does not "expand" into another country the way Russia has expanded into Ukraine!

NATO does not "expand" into another country as countries ask to join NATO and IF all NATO countries agree then they are able to join!

Do you really believe this? Or are you just posting for likes?

Maybe these might enlighten you 

https://www.npr.org/2008/04/02/89300373/bush-calls-for-nato-expansion-at-his-last-summit#:~:text=Speaking in an ornate bank,gains and cement their independence.

https://time.com/6294499/nato-summit-vilnius-asia/

For your sake, I will put the question another way. Is Ukraine joining NATO a threat to Russia? Yes or no?

13 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

I think Tuckers an idiot but have you ever met Tucker to have that opinion because according to your initial post that would be essential.

Sigh… you really lack mental acuity if you can’t see the difference between the two.

I said what I said about Tucker Carlson because I heard the words he said from his own mouth. I will feed your addiction for links by including one that supports my view. There are hundreds of other such links, just google it.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/03/media/tucker-carlson-text-message-analysis/index.html

Horowitz on the other hand is conjecturing, drawing his own, erroneous I should add, conclusions about Putin’s motives. I have not seen any credible supporting evidence for his ridiculous claims.

12 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Question for you. Do you believe that Russia has the right to attack other countries for territorial gain?  I.e., does Russia have a right to expand Russian territory?

 

Yes or no.

 

No, I don’t believe that Russia has the right to attack other countries for territorial gains. I don’t believe that Russia started this SMO for territorial gain. If that was the objective, they would have gone in with a much bigger force, not just the 200-300,000 troops. I believe their goal was to get Ukraine to the negotiating table and they actually succeeded. A deal was initialled by the Ukrainian side in Turkey. Sadly, this was scuppered by the US and UK. Anyone that has been following events closely would know this.

Now maybe you would have the decency to answer my question. NATO expanding into Ukraine poses a major threat to Russia. Agree or disagree?

23 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Total nonsense, NATO are not expanding anywhere, nations are joining NATO because of Russias threat to annexe them. Remember Finland and Sweden, they had no intention of joining NATO until Putin illegally invaded Ukraine.

Totally clueless!

Lol. Some people just have no clue. Or can’t face facts. Hopeless.

6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I do not know if you know how valuable this treaty is for Usa, and as a businessman Trump is, he is trying to squeeze harder to make more out of an already lucrative deal for Usa. Not only weapons, but also bilateral deals. 

 

We will see how long some of the previous east block members choose to sit still, and what side they finely choose to be on. This have just started. 

 

Read about how the 3% GDP requirment, and know what you talking about when you claim it is a fair goal for every member to reach, especially thinking about Trumps mafia methods, you can imagine how well taken this is among Nato members. Still I have thought long time before we have built down our own self defense in Norway, and invested in more mobility defense where we have participated abroad more and more. We also changed our laws, so Norwegian soldiers could participate in wars under foreign countrol, and not only Un missions. 

 

We have now troops in Asia, middle east, Africa, on the boarder to Russia in Lithuania and also training personell in Ukraine. 

 

 

 

 

Why do you have troops thousands of kms away from your own borders? Creating tension and chaos no doubt. I don’t see any Asian or African countries having troops in Europe or the Americas.

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The news comes from Russian reports.

Really? I don’t think so. All the reports I read are pro-Ukrainian and western media and practically all had a disclaimer. Simply put, there was zero evidence of it happening. Basically, it didn’t happen.

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

An idiot is a person of low intelligence. Whether you accept Horowitz's premise or conclusion, he presents a coherent argument which suggests that he is not an idiot.

 

I do not want to believe anything. It's simply that I find the counter arguments such as this war all being part of some US attempt to solidify its' unipolar hegemony; Russia having no choice; Putin saving Ukraine from corruption; Putin ridding us of Nazism, etc altogether less convincing.

 

We all have bias. We need to recognise that and mitigate against as best we can.

Ok, easy question. NATO expanding into Ukraine poses a major threat to Russia. Agree or disagree?

On 5/19/2024 at 6:00 PM, Bkk Brian said:

Another one to the bottom. Beautiful!

 

https://x.com/DefenceU/status/1792110322028822560

 

Strange that there isn’t actual footage to support this claim. Not a porky pie surely?

Oh, I forgot. There is a link, so it must be true…

11 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I am beginning to think that the prime US goal is degrade Russian capabilities, not necessarily have Ukraine win. So, letting Russia inch into Ukraine at a high cost in troops and equipment doesn't have a downside for the US.

You are not entirely wrong there. Some disgusting US politicians have said as much. However I don’t think that this goal will be achieved. The longer this conflict drags on, the more fed up the ROW will be with the collective west. Also it costs much less for Russia to produce the arms and munitions necessary than it does for the American and western taxpayer. Russia also has the support of China and when push comes to shove, it’s very clear who will emerge victorious in this war of attrition.