Jump to content

Biden’s nuclear warning not based on new intelligence but opens a window into real worries inside the White House


Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Sydebolle said:

Look a little further back into the late 80s, the reunification of Germany and the conference of Minsk with Gorbachev and Shevardnaze on the Soviet side, Kohl and Genscher on the German side and Wörner as Secy General of NATO. NATO stated no expansion to the (collapsing communist east), based on which GDR was leaving the Warsaw Pact, a mere ten years later all Warsaw Pact were gone and NATO inched its way towards the east. Latter was most discomforting to the Russians and, knowing American interests in NATO, understandable. The rest is history as Putin, in power for 20+ years, kept repeating his concern.

I am not a Putin friend and he could have made his point by just turning off the gas/oil; but he fell of the trap, went to war and the Ukraineans are the real victims. 

No endeavour made by the west to put this hot potato onto diplomatic tables in i.e. Geneva; Biden made it clear on 7 February already, that he will ensure that the pipelines will be history .... and he followed suit. The Russians had absolutely no motivation to damage the pipelines and the Ukraineans, well, they have different issues on their plate. 

I am utterly shattered by Europe's blind following of the American whistle giving NATO the marching orders now; the losers are the Ukraineans and, in second row, the Europeans. 

Lets hope someone can apply some common sense and a ceasefire to stop this madness but do not expect any support on that from Washington DC ........ 

Ukraine , as in independent Country should have the right to align with whomever they like .

  Ukraine wasn't forced to align with NATO and they shouldn't be forces NOT to align with NATO .

   Its really about time that Russia and the West and also China stopped all the hostilities and became acquaintances 

  • Like 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, candide said:

Someone claiming that Putin has been "taunted" by the U.S., at a time he is threatening to use nuclear weapons, is not off-topic. Even if stated by a previous POTUS.

What Trump thinks about the situation really isn't the topic of this thread 

  • Like 1
  • Love It 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

the crimea bridge explosion may change their mind on nukes

They have been losing for some time already. That may be the clincher, not one battle.

Posted
46 minutes ago, Sydebolle said:

Look a little further back into the late 80s, the reunification of Germany and the conference of Minsk with Gorbachev and Shevardnaze on the Soviet side, Kohl and Genscher on the German side and Wörner as Secy General of NATO. NATO stated no expansion to the (collapsing communist east), based on which GDR was leaving the Warsaw Pact, a mere ten years later all Warsaw Pact were gone and NATO inched its way towards the east. Latter was most discomforting to the Russians and, knowing American interests in NATO, understandable. The rest is history as Putin, in power for 20+ years, kept repeating his concern.

I am not a Putin friend and he could have made his point by just turning off the gas/oil; but he fell of the trap, went to war and the Ukraineans are the real victims. 

No endeavour made by the west to put this hot potato onto diplomatic tables in i.e. Geneva; Biden made it clear on 7 February already, that he will ensure that the pipelines will be history .... and he followed suit. The Russians had absolutely no motivation to damage the pipelines and the Ukraineans, well, they have different issues on their plate. 

I am utterly shattered by Europe's blind following of the American whistle giving NATO the marching orders now; the losers are the Ukraineans and, in second row, the Europeans. 

Lets hope someone can apply some common sense and a ceasefire to stop this madness but do not expect any support on that from Washington DC ........ 

Peace talks are with Ukraine and Putin rejected them

 

As war began, Putin rejected a Ukraine peace deal recommended by aide

But, despite earlier backing the negotiations, Putin made it clear when presented with Kozak's deal that the concessions negotiated by his aide did not go far enough and that he had expanded his objectives to include annexing swathes of Ukrainian territory, the sources said. The upshot: the deal was dropped.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-war-began-putin-rejected-ukraine-peace-deal-recommended-by-his-aide-2022-09-14/

 

President Zelensky: 'Ukraine won't join NATO to stop the war with Russia'

In order to find peace with Russia, president Zelensky is willing to reject NATO

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2022/03/23/623a883fca47418c4d8b45f6.html

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
On 10/8/2022 at 3:51 PM, Phoenix Rising said:

Look at the bright side; if trump hadn't been absolutely slaughtered in the election the whole of Ukraine would have been in Russian hands by now.

What a load...

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)

Looks like things are not going swimmingly for Vlad with the CSTO, Russia's post-Soviet answer to NATO.

Kyrgyzstan cancels Russian-led military drill on its land

My guess is the leaders of these countries look at what is happening in Ukraine and are thinking "there but for the grace of god  . . . ."

 

Even within its own ranks Russia is having a morale problem, whereas a few days ago I came across a vid of two young Ukrani women soldiers singing a song of resistance while they sat in a trench loading their ammo clips.  Meanwhile, the Russian troops are hoping for a border to escape over.

 

 

Edited by bendejo
  • Like 1
Posted

Putin has now blamed the Ukranian Security forces or Terrorists as he called them for blowing up the Bridge to Crimea.  I am sure he will use this as more fodder to try and dispatch a low yield tactical nuke.  He is also preparing his people for the event.

https://newscinema.in/putin-preparing-to-make-nuclear-war-decision-says-kremlin-insiders

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
On 10/9/2022 at 7:35 PM, billd766 said:

Have you thought about how those countries became members of the Warsaw Pact originally?

 

A clue would be that Russia invaded and annexed those countries during the course of WW2.

 

When the Warsaw Pact finally collapsed those countries were free to choose their own course, and there was NO Russian military stationed in the country any more to force them to toe the Russian line.

 

Please tell us all how, in your opinion, NATO inched its way towards the east. Did NATO knock on the doors of each former Warsaw pact country and threaten to invade them unless they joined NATO.

 

Perhaps each of the countries individually approached NATO and asked to join NATO?

 

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm#:~:text=NATO's “open door policy” is,a say in such deliberations.

NATO’s “open door policy” is based on Article 10 of its founding treaty. Any decision to invite a country to join the Alliance is taken by the North Atlantic Council on the basis of consensus among all Allies. No third country has a say in such deliberations.
NATO’s ongoing enlargement process poses no threat to any country. It is aimed at promoting stability and cooperation, at building a Europe whole and free, united in peace, democracy and common values.

 

You mix Russia with the Soviet Union ........ We're talking today of Russia being led by a Soviet brain

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 10/9/2022 at 6:43 PM, candide said:

The Soviet Union has been dissolved in December 1991.  Russia officially and legally exited the Soviet Union before that, in June 1991 (even before Ukraine in August). 

If promised have been made (this is contested, but never mind), they have not been made to Russia.

Correct, Gorbachev and Shevardnadze operated on behest of the USSR, of which today's Russia was a part ....... This does not invalidate the Treaty of Minsk and the US constitution remains binding despite having quite a few states which joined AFTER 1776 .......

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 10/9/2022 at 6:41 PM, earlinclaifornia said:

You sound exactly like radio Moscow.  I know because I read from "The Duran" (Youtube) everyday about how Russia views the situation. Oh and yes they too claim they have no dog in this fight! LOL

We would have to agree to disagree on this statement .........

Posted
On 10/9/2022 at 6:37 PM, Mac Mickmanus said:

Ukraine , as in independent Country should have the right to align with whomever they like .

  Ukraine wasn't forced to align with NATO and they shouldn't be forces NOT to align with NATO .

   Its really about time that Russia and the West and also China stopped all the hostilities and became acquaintances 

Excellent comment and I could not agree more; while I can follow Putin's thinking though I am certainly in the camp of all those who utterly disapproved his military invasion. Turning down the gas tap on a little by little basis would have driven the message home to Brussels and all those NATO/EU huggers without a single life threatened in Ukraine or elsewhere ......

Posted
11 minutes ago, Sydebolle said:

Correct, Gorbachev and Shevardnadze operated on behest of the USSR, of which today's Russia was a part ....... This does not invalidate the Treaty of Minsk and the US constitution remains binding despite having quite a few states which joined AFTER 1776 .......

That's not how Russia see's the Minsk Agreement though:

 

A major blockage has been Russia’s insistence that it is not a party to the conflict and therefore is not bound by its terms.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/9/what-is-the-minsk-agreement-and-why-is-it-relevant-now

  • Like 1
Posted
On 10/15/2022 at 6:45 PM, Bkk Brian said:

That's not how Russia see's the Minsk Agreement though:

 

A major blockage has been Russia’s insistence that it is not a party to the conflict and therefore is not bound by its terms.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/9/what-is-the-minsk-agreement-and-why-is-it-relevant-now

Every day is school day; I mixed up Minsk I and Minsk II with the following conference on the subject, herewith quoted from an NSA website:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

Posted
6 minutes ago, Sydebolle said:

Every day is school day; I mixed up Minsk I and Minsk II with the following conference on the subject, herewith quoted from an NSA website:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

Ok but as mentioned:

"A major blockage has been Russia’s insistence that it is not a party to the conflict and therefore is not bound by its terms."

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...