Ukraine war could last for years, warns NATO chief; British troops must prepare to fight in Europe once again

[transam]

3 hours ago, JetsetBkk said:

He was a popular comedic actor TV star who played at being the president of Ukraine.  Just like now.  

You should read the whole story about the guy, or didn't your rag go that far, just the bits that bar stool gossip feed on...?

[candide]

On 6/24/2022 at 6:02 AM, g man said:

The United States did not tolerate any Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962, yet the United States now expects Russia to accept Ukraine as a possible additional NATO country on Russia’s border, only a short distance from Moscow.

Lame false equivalence.

 

Even if Ukraine would join NATO, it doesn't mean that there would be offensive  ballistic missiles in Ukraine, as it is not the U.S. or NATO policy to put offensive ballistic missiles close to Russia. There are no offensive ballistic missiles or nuclear bombs in Eastern Europe.

The only case of missile station in Romania is hosting interceptors (anti-missile system).

As concerns nuclear bombs, the closest ones to Russia are in Turkey, the others are in Germany, France, etc...

So Ukraine joining NATO would mean zilch in term of nuclear threat to Russia.

 

If you new what you are talking about, you would know that the biggest threat is nuclear submarines, and you can be sure that they are now quietly waiting in the Baltic Sea, the Barents Sea, or the Mediterranean Sea.

Edited June 25, 2022 by candide

[metisdead]

A post in which the quoted content had been altered has been removed:

 

28. You will not make changes to messages quoted from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. Do not shorten any post in a way that alters the context of the original post. Do not change the formatting of the post you are quoting.

 

Edit:  Another post in which the quoted content has been truncated has been reported and removed. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by metisdead

[heybruce]

On 6/24/2022 at 12:02 AM, g man said:

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who has recently urged Ukraine to accept an agreement to cede territory in exchange for peace.  His reason is apparently a desire to avoid an alliance between Russia and China, a reason similar to that for his earlier advice to President Nixon to open relationships with China, so as to discourage China from having a close relationship with the Soviet Union. If you recall that Trump used his alliance with Russia as a tactic to form a strong alliance to deal with the bigger threat posed by China. Putin and Trump running rough-shod on Xi could yield a benefit to the west.

The United States did not tolerate any Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962, yet the United States now expects Russia to accept Ukraine as a possible additional NATO country on Russia’s border, only a short distance from Moscow.

The US and NATO have no intentions of putting nuclear missiles in Ukraine.  The US never liked having a communist government in  Cuba but has tolerated it and not invaded it.

[dj230]

There was rumours in the financial markets last week about a truce deal brewing. 
 

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

The US and NATO have no intentions of putting nuclear missiles in Ukraine.  The US never liked having a communist government in  Cuba but has tolerated it and not invaded it.

Well, at least not since the early 60's

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, at least not since the early 60's

The Bay of Pigs disaster was organized by the CIA but involved Cuban exiles, not US military forces.  It was nothing like Russia's seizure of Crimea, the "little green men" of the Donbas region, or the all-out invasion of Ukraine earlier this year.

[TacoKhun]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

The US and NATO have no intentions of putting nuclear missiles in Ukraine.  The US never liked having a communist government in  Cuba but has tolerated it and not invaded it.

I always feel confused when I read something like this or "NATO is a defensive alliance", like how people actually can believe that. Like, today maybe it is a true, but what about tomorrow. 

"Because of threat to world piece yadayda, we decided to put missiles where we promised we wont, because we were forced to and have no choice, and change our stance on non-aggression position, because fate of the world depends on it, just only this once". Like, this is what happened all the time during human history. Today say something, tomorrow do the opposite, because circumstances changed.

Edited June 26, 2022 by TacoKhun

[JetsetBkk]

5 hours ago, dj230 said:

There was rumours in the financial markets last week about a truce deal brewing. 
 

 

That's the only way out of this mess.

 

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, TacoKhun said:

I always feel confused when I read something like this or "NATO is a defensive alliance", like how people actually can believe that. Like, today maybe it is a true, but what about tomorrow. 

"Because of threat to world piece yadayda, we decided to put missiles and change our stance on non-aggression position, because fate of the world depends on it, just only this once". Like, this is what happened all the time during human history. Today say something, tomorrow do the opposite, because circumstances changed.

I've got to remember this tactic next time I'm in a disagreement with someone. Just invoke the possibility of someone or some organization behaving oppositely than what it has done in the past based on some unspecified eventuality. Your approach to life would seem to make rational planning impossible.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, JetsetBkk said:

That's the only way out of this mess.

 

The question is when.

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, TacoKhun said:

I always feel confused when I read something like this or "NATO is a defensive alliance", like how people actually can believe that. Like, today maybe it is a true, but what about tomorrow. 

"Because of threat to world piece yadayda, we decided to put missiles and change our stance on non-aggression position, because fate of the world depends on it, just only this once". Like, this is what happened all the time during human history. Today say something, tomorrow do the opposite, because circumstances changed.

Like Putin saying yesterday that he would arm Belarus with nuclear capable missiles?

 

 

[TacoKhun]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Like Putin saying yesterday that he would arm Belarus with nuclear capable missiles?

 

 

I dont care what Putin said he will do. My point is if someone promise he wont do something or has no plan or intentions to do something today, does not mean that tomorrow he wont change his mind. So if NATO says we strictly defensive alliance, one has to have in mind that tomorrow it might not be and if you are not ready you are dead.

Edited June 26, 2022 by TacoKhun

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, TacoKhun said:

I dont care what Putin said he will do. My point is if someone promise he wont do something or has no plan or intentions to do something today, does not mean that tomorrow he wont change his mind. So if NATO says we strictly defensive alliance, one has to have in mind that tomorrow it might not be and if you are not ready you are dead.

NATO cares especially when Putin makes threatens against NATO countries. Nations care especially when Putins goals do not stop at Ukraine.

[JetsetBkk]

11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Like Putin saying yesterday that he would arm Belarus with nuclear capable missiles?

 

Do you understand the concept of "negotiating"?  ???? 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, JetsetBkk said:

Do you understand the concept of "negotiating"?  ???? 

Yes whats that got to do with Putins meeting yesterday with Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko when he said he would supply nuclear capable missiles and also said Russia would help to modify Belarusian SU-25 warplanes so that they could carry nuclear weapons

[JetsetBkk]

18 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes whats that got to do with Putins meeting yesterday with Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko when he said he would supply nuclear capable missiles and also said Russia would help to modify Belarusian SU-25 warplanes so that they could carry nuclear weapons

So you don't understand, do you? This was a negotiating tactic by Putin to let everyone know that Zelensky and the West needs to get back to the negotiating table.

 

Why can't you see that?  At least the Ukrainians do:

 

"Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak denied that the peace negotiations were stalled and said Russia is trying to put pressure on Ukraine through such public statements. The “negotiations are extremely difficult," Podolyak told Ukraine’s Pravda. “But they are taking place.” "

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/12/russia-putin-belarus-lukashenko-ukraine-war/ 

 

[Bkk Brian]

41 minutes ago, JetsetBkk said:

So you don't understand, do you? This was a negotiating tactic by Putin to let everyone know that Zelensky and the West needs to get back to the negotiating table.

 

Why can't you see that?  At least the Ukrainians do:

 

"Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak denied that the peace negotiations were stalled and said Russia is trying to put pressure on Ukraine through such public statements. The “negotiations are extremely difficult," Podolyak told Ukraine’s Pravda. “But they are taking place.” "

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/12/russia-putin-belarus-lukashenko-ukraine-war/ 

 

Your links are from back in April things have moved on just a tadge since then. Putin has been making negotiating tactics throughout the attack, that' his favourite ploy and one he would love, Ukraine concede and be done with it.

 

I understand perfectly what Putin is doing, he's attempting to drag Belarus into the war while at the same time agreeing to requests from Lukashenko who asked for Russia to make Belarusian warplanes nuclear-capable which Putin agreed to.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61936820

 

Ukraine accuses Russia of dragging Belarus into war
https://www.aninews.in/news/world/europe/ukraine-accuses-russia-of-dragging-belarus-into-war20220625203742/

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, TacoKhun said:

I always feel confused when I read something like this or "NATO is a defensive alliance", like how people actually can believe that. Like, today maybe it is a true, but what about tomorrow. 

"Because of threat to world piece yadayda, we decided to put missiles where we promised we wont, because we were forced to and have no choice, and change our stance on non-aggression position, because fate of the world depends on it, just only this once". Like, this is what happened all the time during human history. Today say something, tomorrow do the opposite, because circumstances changed.

Really?  That confuses you?

 

NATO has been around since 1949 and has never started a war or invaded a peaceful neighbor or seized another countries territory.  Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union Russia has invaded and seized territory in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

 

Justifying a war of aggression with the excuse "Maybe someday the peaceful alliance that Ukraine wants to join but hasn't will someday become the aggressor" is pretty lame.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, TacoKhun said:

I dont care what Putin said he will do. My point is if someone promise he wont do something or has no plan or intentions to do something today, does not mean that tomorrow he wont change his mind. So if NATO says we strictly defensive alliance, one has to have in mind that tomorrow it might not be and if you are not ready you are dead.

Putin routinely lies.  NATO has never in its 70+ years of existence been anything but a defensive organization. 

 

It's true nothing in life is certain, but some things are much more reliable than others.

[candide]

17 minutes ago, TacoKhun said:

Of course it is, Lybia destroyed, Siria almost destroyed, Iraq destroyed, Afganistan destroyed, Half of Yugoslavia bombed into ruins,  North Korea, Iran, China(touch Taiwan and we will come for you) is under constant threat of intervention. One has to be 50 IQ to still believe in this lie, NATO is anything but defensive organization. It is USA tool to project USA interests over the world and it will be what USA needs it to be. Here is list of your "Defensive" organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations actions, so defensive "rolling my eyes".

Your post is dishonest and full of B.S.!

- you missleadingly use the word "destroyed" where there wasn't much destruction caused by NATO, ex in Yugoslavia, the role of NATO has been mainly to prevent more fights and destructions, I.e. establish no-fly zones

- you conveniently fail to mention that in the listed cases, there was usually a U.N. mandate,

- finally, you conveniently confuse between cases in which individual countries have been involved (even if the main ones may belong to NATO), and (few) cases in which NATO has been involved as an organisation. For example, there has been no NATO involvement in the 2 Irak wars, and some prominent NATO countries even voiced their opposition to the second one (ex. France)

- idem for the "threats", made by the U.S., not NATO.

[Bkk Brian]

43 minutes ago, TacoKhun said:

Of course it is, Lybia destroyed, Siria almost destroyed, Iraq destroyed, Afganistan destroyed, Half of Yugoslavia bombed into ruins,  North Korea, Iran, China(touch Taiwan and we will come for you) is under constant threat of intervention. One has to be 50 IQ to still believe in this lie, NATO is anything but defensive organization. It is USA tool to project USA interests over the world and it will be what USA needs it to be. Here is list of your "Defensive" organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations actions, so defensive "rolling my eyes".

 

NATO already set precedent that it is not defensive organization, more than once, does not matter what an excuse was, save people lives, to stop genocide, to fight terrorists, to prevent more atrocities, whatever. If you go on path of funding excuses to do what you are not supposed to do, then there will always be another excuse to justify anything, and the only reason NATO is not bombing Moscow yet is that Moscow has nuclear weapons.

You need a serious lesson in truth even your link counters your own claims

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, TacoKhun said:

Of course it is, Lybia destroyed, Siria almost destroyed, Iraq destroyed, Afganistan destroyed, Half of Yugoslavia bombed into ruins,  North Korea, Iran, China(touch Taiwan and we will come for you) is under constant threat of intervention. One has to be 50 IQ to still believe in this lie, NATO is anything but defensive organization. It is USA tool to project USA interests over the world and it will be what USA needs it to be. Here is list of your "Defensive" organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations actions, so defensive "rolling my eyes".

 

NATO already set precedent that it is not defensive organization, more than once, does not matter what an excuse was, save people lives, to stop genocide, to fight terrorists, to prevent more atrocities, whatever. If you go on path of funding excuses to do what you are not supposed to do, then there will always be another excuse to justify anything, and the only reason NATO is not bombing Moscow yet is that Moscow has nuclear weapons.

Your post has already been well responded to, so I will simply ask:

 

When has NATO ever done anything as aggressively offensive as Russia has done in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine?

 

If Russia weren't threatening and invading its neighbors, Russia's neighbors wouldn't be so keen on joining NATO.

[ballpoint]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Your post has already been well responded to, so I will simply ask:

 

When has NATO ever done anything as aggressively offensive as Russia has done in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine?

 

If Russia weren't threatening and invading its neighbors, Russia's neighbors wouldn't be so keen on joining NATO.

Put it in simpler terms:

 

Hands up all countries who want to join NATO...

 

Hands up all countries who want to join Russia...

[Bkk Brian]

Present for Putin from secretary general of NATO announced just before the start of the G7 meeting:

 

BBC Report

Nato to massively expand quick response force

"We will strengthen our forward defences. We will enhance our battle groups in the eastern part of the alliance, up to brigade levels. We will transform the Nato response force and increase the number of our high readiness forces to well over 300,000," Jens Stoltenberg tells reporters in Madrid ahead of a summit there this week.

 

Meanwhile, Putin at his meeting of the G1

[steven100]

war could last for years, warns NATO chief ...

 

Well,  if NATO got off their fat a_se and did something it would only last a few days. 

Weak as p_ss comes to mind.

just only ever talk ....  talk ....  talk .....     they never do nothing to stop the killing of civilians. 

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by steven100

[Scott]

A post and reply with unsubstantiated claims have been reported.