Ukraine applies for Nato membership after Russia annexes territory

[Tropposurfer]

I hope they take every centimetre of land back, then turn to the Crimea and drive the neo-Czar and his henchmen out of there too!

 

[3NUMBAS]

everyone wll get sucked into ww3 if it goes ahead .end of world for good

[Cory1848]

5 hours ago, blazes said:

Precisely the one thing that will guarantee the war will go on and on. 

 

Who benefits from this war supported by the American taxpayer  to the tune of (at least) $39 billion?  The main beneficiaries clearly (see their stock price increases through this year) are Northrop Grumann  Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and other such armament manufacturers.

It has been ever thus, via Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and all similar countries who failed in some way to toe the Western political line.

While I have no argument with your pointing out war profiteering and, even more, the expansion of neoliberal capitalism (wholesale privatization and zero government regulation) into newly “liberated” regions, as described by Naomi Klein and others, such arguments, valid as they might be, often fail to take into account the agency of the people themselves who live in these regions: in this case, what do the Ukrainians themselves want? After 1989, given an opportunity to free themselves from decades of Russian imperialism, people in countries from Estonia to Albania chose to align themselves with Western institutions (or to “toe the Western political line” as you would put it), and as a result they are substantially more prosperous, and more free, than they were thirty years ago. The Ukrainians, free to travel in the West, see this new prosperity and want it for themselves. Who can blame them for that, and why shouldn’t the West welcome them? Nobody is forcing post-communist Europeans down these paths.

 

That’s where your comparisons with other countries where the US (and others) have spent lavishly on military support fall short. The situation with Ukraine in many respects is quite different.

[Denim]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Zelensky is right but I don’t think NATO will go for this yet. Particularly Putin liking Hungary and now fascist Italy.

 

Unfortunately NATO will probably wait until Putin uses a nuke.

On the subject of nukes ,  Russia doesn't necessarily have to nuke a city. It could use small tactical nukes dropped around its ' new border ' to create a radioactive no go area that would be deadly to anyone in that area. A radioactive wasteland on Ukraines eastern border. 

 

Who knows what the lunatics in the Kremlin will do. It's a horrible guessing game with no winners.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, 3NUMBAS said:

everyone wll get sucked into ww3 if it goes ahead .end of world for good

Possibly but what's the alternative to not responding to an unhinged regime stealing lands with nuclear blackmail? If allowed to stand, that's the precedent.

[unblocktheplanet]

Thailand has it right: keep your bloody nose out. Sounding more like Dr Stranglove every day.

[ThailandRyan]

4 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Thailand has it right: keep your bloody nose out. Sounding more like Dr Stranglove every day.

Can you explain why Thailand has it right?  Thailand in my view is playing both ends against the middle and getting ready to implode.

Edited October 1, 2022 by ThailandRyan

[placnx]

6 hours ago, scorecard said:

An interesting point; if Putin uses a nuclear weapon seem to me that biden can't ignore it and will order a fast bigger nuclear drop on Russia.

US could sink the entire Black Sea fleet with conventional weapons.

[baboon]

8 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

Given Putin's intention to annex part of the Ukraine , it would be a good lesson for him if the Ukraine became a NATO member in record time . If , ever , he decides to use Nukes on Ukraine , it would be a nuclear attack on NATO with all the consequences .

Yes, the death of us all.

But I do agree that the enemies of Putin need to look into his snake cold blue eyes and warn him that HE is on the list, not Russia or the Russians. Just him. And let that be known to the Russian people as best as we can.

And the what, quarter of a million people fleeing him, won't take much convincing.

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, baboon said:

Yes, the death of us all.

But I do agree that the enemies of Putin need to look into his snake cold blue eyes and warn him that HE is on the list, not Russia or the Russians. Just him. And let that be known to the Russian people as best as we can.

And the what, quarter of a million people fleeing him, won't take much convincing.

I think the Russians need to do this. Western policies can contribute to nudging them to do this. If the Russians can't or won't. I really don't know how he can be ended except from natural causes. The most likely Russian way is a coup from the military or FSB, but Putin is so paranoid that clearly anyone that he suspects of betrayal gets thrown out a window. That's classic evil dictator behavior and he fits the bill.

I don't remember the source but I recently saw a pundit saying the people COULD oust him if a million of them hit the streets in Moscow. While I don't know if that's true, or perhaps two million or another number would be needed, but up till now Putin's intimidation tactics and machine have always worked. That seems the best way, a real people's revolution, but somehow the least likely. 

 

Putin Has Left the World No Other Option But Regime Change (thedailybeast.com)

Quote

 

Vladimir Putin must go.

His demented Kremlin speech Friday, during a ceremony in which he feebly asserted Russia was annexing portions of Ukraine, made the strongest case for the necessity of regime change in Moscow that any world leader has yet to make.

 

 

[mania]

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Possibly but what's the alternative to not responding to an unhinged regime stealing lands with nuclear blackmail? If allowed to stand, that's the precedent.

It is funny how so many seem to think a Nuclear war between the likes of Russia & the USA is survivable by nearly anyone at all or what the world that is left afterwards would look like. Not to mention all the expats in Thailand without SS ????

 

That aside & as to stealing lands or nuclear usage there is one glaring fault in all this USA high ground BS

 

One who was it that overthrew a monarchy & stole lands to then create the 50th State of the USA?

 

Two who was the only country in the history of this world that used a nuclear bomb on not a military but civilian target ?

Edited October 1, 2022 by mania

[hotchilli]

16 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Zelensky is right but I don’t think NATO will go for this yet. Particularly Putin liking Hungary and now fascist Italy.

 

Unfortunately NATO will probably wait until Putin uses a nuke.

Then it's all too late.

[vandeventer]

On 10/1/2022 at 2:27 PM, Jingthing said:

But Ukraine can't do that alone.

I think they can, but if Putin uses nukes, Noto and the USA might nuke back. Nobody wants to see Ukraine lose land nor Putin and his team of killers get away with war crimes. The only way out that I can see is to give Ukraine Tac-nukes as well. To be kept under lock and key in Ukraine and only used if Putin uses them first.

[Wobblybob]

22 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Possibly but what's the alternative to not responding to an unhinged regime stealing lands with nuclear blackmail? If allowed to stand, that's the precedent.

Unfortunately there isn't an alternative, Margaret Thatcher said "When you stop a dictator, there are always risks, but there are greater risks in not stopping a dictator"

[Jingthing]

39 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

I think they can, but if Putin uses nukes, Noto and the USA might nuke back. Nobody wants to see Ukraine lose land nor Putin and his team of killers get away with war crimes. The only way out that I can see is to give Ukraine Tac-nukes as well. To be kept under lock and key in Ukraine and only used if Putin uses them first.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I meant that Ukraine has needed outside help with arms, etc.  and will continue to need such help.

Ukrainians have shown historically remarkable motivation and bravery but without the arms help they wouldn't be winning. 

Putin the Horrible may indeed go nuclear and if he does he will start smallish. I don't think the first response will be nuclear but it will need to be otherwise proportionate. If it escalates after that all bets are off.

 

If anyone had any doubt at all about whether Ukraine would respect the sham annexations.

 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2022 by Jingthing

[billd766]

On 10/1/2022 at 1:55 PM, blazes said:

Precisely the one thing that will guarantee the war will go on and on. 

 

Who benefits from this war supported by the American taxpayer  to the tune of (at least) $39 billion?  The main beneficiaries clearly (see their stock price increases through this year) are Northrop Grumann  Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and other such armament manufacturers.

It has been ever thus, via Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and all similar countries who failed in some way to toe the Western political line.

Who benefits?

 

Try taking your head out of where it is.

 

You may think it is about money.

 

To me and many others I believe it is about taking a stand, helping other countries and their people.

 

The simple answer is the Ukrainian people without the support of NATO, the USA, the UK and others the Ukraine would probably not exist as a sovereign democratic country any more.

 

It would be a satellite country occupied by the Russians, who led by Putin, would be looking at more countries to annex to build his dream.

[placeholder]

On 10/1/2022 at 1:55 PM, blazes said:

 

 

Who benefits from this war supported by the American taxpayer  to the tune of (at least) $39 billion?  The main beneficiaries clearly (see their stock price increases through this year) are Northrop Grumann  Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and other such armament manufacturers.

It has been ever thus, via Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and all similar countries who failed in some way to toe the Western political line.

You forget that Russian war profiteers are also making out quite handsomely.

[blazes]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

To me and many others I believe it is about taking a stand, helping other countries and their people.

 

Rather a simple, old-fashioned, my-country-right-or-wrong view.   In all the years since WW2, with all those American invasions into 3rd world countries, did Washington ever think to ask the people of those countries whether they wanted the murderous "help" America delivered from the sky by napalm?

 

No, thought not.

[candide]

On 10/1/2022 at 8:55 AM, blazes said:

Precisely the one thing that will guarantee the war will go on and on. 

 

Who benefits from this war supported by the American taxpayer  to the tune of (at least) $39 billion?  The main beneficiaries clearly (see their stock price increases through this year) are Northrop Grumann  Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and other such armament manufacturers.

It has been ever thus, via Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and all similar countries who failed in some way to toe the Western political line.

U.S. arms manufacturers surely made a lot of money during WW2. Does it imply that the U.S. should not have supported UK and other countries, and that it shouldn't have fought against Germany and Japan?

 

As you mentioned in another post, not all wars are justified. For example the Irak invasion was not. Some others are, such as Ukraine fighting against a facist invader. Whatever the war, just or not, arms manufacturers will make money. It is not an indicator wether a particular conflict is justified or not.

Edited October 2, 2022 by candide

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, blazes said:

 

Rather a simple, old-fashioned, my-country-right-or-wrong view.   In all the years since WW2, with all those American invasions into 3rd world countries, did Washington ever think to ask the people of those countries whether they wanted the murderous "help" America delivered from the sky by napalm?

 

No, thought not.

What does that have to with Ukraine?

[Dan O]

On 10/1/2022 at 4:38 AM, blazes said:

I did (think again) and find the exact same answer through  a  lifetime of seeing American failure after failure after failure to impose its view of the world upon one 3rd world  country  after another.

It's  only just over  12 months since the shameful retreat from Afghanistan after 20  years of showing the Taliban and company the values of the Western way of life.

 

You'd  think someone in Washington would, after all these failures,  "think again".

 

 

The other wars you quoted earlier had America physically involved, after other countries had done the same without success in those same countries. I'm not defending those actions as they were certainly misguided.

 

America did not instigate this war nor are they physically there as in other conflicts. America also isn't politically instigating anything as you say, only offering support to negate the illegal invasion of another country by Russia after taking other land by force in a bid to expand against the sovereign rights those countries.  

[Dan O]

2 hours ago, blazes said:

 

Rather a simple, old-fashioned, my-country-right-or-wrong view.   In all the years since WW2, with all those American invasions into 3rd world countries, did Washington ever think to ask the people of those countries whether they wanted the murderous "help" America delivered from the sky by napalm?

 

No, thought not.

Your comparisons are way off base in this situation but it's clear the bias you have. May want to read up on this issue a bit more to gain a clearer understanding of this conflict.

[Dan O]

19 hours ago, mania said:

It is funny how so many seem to think a Nuclear war between the likes of Russia & the USA is survivable by nearly anyone at all or what the world that is left afterwards would look like. Not to mention all the expats in Thailand without SS ????

 

That aside & as to stealing lands or nuclear usage there is one glaring fault in all this USA high ground BS

 

One who was it that overthrew a monarchy & stole lands to then create the 50th State of the USA?

 

Two who was the only country in the history of this world that used a nuclear bomb on not a military but civilian target ?

Speaking of BS, You too are quoting history out of the current context to try to make a misguided point.

 

To use your false logic there isn't one country or people in the world that can claim non violence against another country or people. So you're standing on a moral ground of quicksand over a pile of BS, hope your wearing boots.

[billd766]

13 hours ago, blazes said:

 

Rather a simple, old-fashioned, my-country-right-or-wrong view.   In all the years since WW2, with all those American invasions into 3rd world countries, did Washington ever think to ask the people of those countries whether they wanted the murderous "help" America delivered from the sky by napalm?

 

No, thought not.

Why do you answer your own question without a response from anybody?

 

Firstly the leaders of any country don't wake up in the morning and decide that, as they are bored, today is a good day to invade country X, Y or Z.

 

In the early days of planning a great deal of information is required. About your own country, its forces and more importantly the forces that are available, spares, fuel, ammunition, food and water and all the other logistics that you will need, plus the reliability of your allies.

 

Then you need to know even more about the country, and its allies, that you are thinking of invading. 

 

That is obtained in various ways, satellite overflights, careful reading of newspapers, magazines, radio and TV, spies on the ground, the legal ones from the embassies and the black ones that have no legal cover.

 

It does not mean that your leader goes out in a wig, false nose, moustache etc.

 

All of this information comes from ordinary people, Perhaps from dissidents in the country you are looking at to invade, but even spies are ordinary people.

 

It then goes up the chain of command through the various departments to probably cabinet level where it is brought to the country leaders attention.

 

Meetings and discussions are held, with and without the leader and in the end a decision is made for or against an invasion of country X, Y or Z.

 

If the decision is made to invade, ONLY then are detailed plans made, refined and adjusted for the final yes or no. 

 

I use the term leader instead of President, Prime Minister, Supreme Being, Dictator as it a an easy cover all label.

 

It is all down to the little people who gather information and on the people above them who have to evaluate it.

 

If they get it wrong then the whole thing is wrong.

 

And then sometimes you get somebody like Putin who does what HE wants simply because he can.

 

And it seems that he might have got it wrong in the Ukraine. he did annex the Crimea in 2014 and also Georgia in 2008.

 

Should I mention the Russian invasion of Afghanistan?

 

If you want a longer list of Russian invasions you could always look here. but that goes back over 1,000 years or 4 times longer than the the USA has been a united country.

 

You seem to have an obsession or perhaps a hatred of the USA for some reason, and that everything that they have done or are doing is wrong.

 

 

 

You keep harping on about the USA but fail to mention China.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People's_Republic_of_China

 

 

 

[billd766]

13 hours ago, blazes said:

 

Rather a simple, old-fashioned, my-country-right-or-wrong view.   In all the years since WW2, with all those American invasions into 3rd world countries, did Washington ever think to ask the people of those countries whether they wanted the murderous "help" America delivered from the sky by napalm?

 

No, thought not.

BTW I am simple and old fashioned but the USA is not my country.

[blazes]

30 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Why do you answer your own question without a response from anybody?

 

Firstly the leaders of any country don't wake up in the morning and decide that, as they are bored, today is a good day to invade country X, Y or Z.

 

In the early days of planning a great deal of information is required. About your own country, its forces and more importantly the forces that are available, spares, fuel, ammunition, food and water and all the other logistics that you will need, plus the reliability of your allies.

 

Then you need to know even more about the country, and its allies, that you are thinking of invading. 

 

That is obtained in various ways, satellite overflights, careful reading of newspapers, magazines, radio and TV, spies on the ground, the legal ones from the embassies and the black ones that have no legal cover.

 

It does not mean that your leader goes out in a wig, false nose, moustache etc.

 

All of this information comes from ordinary people, Perhaps from dissidents in the country you are looking at to invade, but even spies are ordinary people.

 

It then goes up the chain of command through the various departments to probably cabinet level where it is brought to the country leaders attention.

 

Meetings and discussions are held, with and without the leader and in the end a decision is made for or against an invasion of country X, Y or Z.

 

If the decision is made to invade, ONLY then are detailed plans made, refined and adjusted for the final yes or no. 

 

I use the term leader instead of President, Prime Minister, Supreme Being, Dictator as it a an easy cover all label.

 

It is all down to the little people who gather information and on the people above them who have to evaluate it.

 

If they get it wrong then the whole thing is wrong.

 

And then sometimes you get somebody like Putin who does what HE wants simply because he can.

 

And it seems that he might have got it wrong in the Ukraine. he did annex the Crimea in 2014 and also Georgia in 2008.

 

Should I mention the Russian invasion of Afghanistan?

 

If you want a longer list of Russian invasions you could always look here. but that goes back over 1,000 years or 4 times longer than the the USA has been a united country.

 

You seem to have an obsession or perhaps a hatred of the USA for some reason, and that everything that they have done or are doing is wrong.

 

 

 

You keep harping on about the USA but fail to mention China.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People's_Republic_of_China

 

 

 

In the face of this breathtaking naïveté about the way government policy is constructed, all one can say is perhaps well summed up in this shameful  (actually, shameless) claim made before a recent murderous invasion:

 

"Weapons of mass destruction." 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, blazes said:

In the face of this breathtaking naïveté about the way government policy is constructed, all one can say is perhaps well summed up in this shameful  (actually, shameless) claim made before a recent murderous invasion:

 

"Weapons of mass destruction." 

This class of reflexive cynicism is really just a way of protecting one's beliefs. In other words, it's willful ignorance, choosing not to know the facts. Each case deserves to be investigated on its own merits.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, blazes said:

In the face of this breathtaking naïveté about the way government policy is constructed, all one can say is perhaps well summed up in this shameful  (actually, shameless) claim made before a recent murderous invasion:

 

"Weapons of mass destruction." 

If I am wrong, please explain where and how.

 

Remember, not everybody is as smart as you think you are.

[Dan O]

5 hours ago, blazes said:

In the face of this breathtaking naïveté about the way government policy is constructed, all one can say is perhaps well summed up in this shameful  (actually, shameless) claim made before a recent murderous invasion:

 

"Weapons of mass destruction." 

Again you show your ignorance about current facts. Your example have nothing to do with this situation in Ukraine. The US didn't instigate anything here to cause Russia to invaded. The closest you could come would be to say Trump's reach around hand jobs to Putin gave him the feeling he could do what he wants and it would be ok. Other than that your examples are pathetic and so far off base on this topic. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Again you show your ignorance about current facts. Your example have nothing to do with this situation in Ukraine. The US didn't instigate anything here to cause Russia to invaded. The closest you could come would be to say Trump's reach around hand jobs to Putin gave him the feeling he could do what he wants and it would be ok. Other than that your examples are pathetic and so far off base on this topic. 

Russia began their attack on Ukraine AFTER Trump had left office and Biden was POTUS when Russia attacked Ukraine .

   More likely that Putin didn't attack Ukraine whilst Trump was POTUS because he thought Trump would oppose his actions and he waited until Trump had gone before he started the war