Striking Back: The West's Need for a Stronger Response to Russia's Hybrid War

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Fortean1 said:

Rod Taylor in The Time Machine is a favorite of mine.  Please see: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054387/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_6_tt_7_nm_1_in_0_q_time%20machine I believe his last movie was Inglorious Basterds, role as Winston Churchill.  Elois munching on fruit and veggies, and Morlocks munching on Elois.  The remakes appeal to new generations I suppose.  You know the U.S. and its Allies used tactical nukes at the end of war games as the Soviet tank armies came through the Ruhr and Po valleys.

 

They made a re imagining  of the Time Machine? Say it's not true. Some awful woke mishmash no doubt.

 

I must have blinked and missed him as Winston ( did they not have a Brit available? ). My favourite of his is A Gathering of Eagles, a tribute to the men that flew the deterrence to Russia way back before ICBMs ( those B52s have been around for such a long time- now that's what a good bit of kit looks like ).

 

I knew someone in tankies in BAOR and he said they had a life span of about 7 minutes if it really kicked off. Nukes would have been the only realistic response. Airfix used to put out a model kit of a big battlefield nuclear shell gun. I presume they actually existed.

[HappyExpat57]

Wars are designed for one thing only - to keep the money flowing to weapons manufacturers. Until the likes of Halliburton grow a conscience, it will never end.

[Hummin]

29 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Wars are designed for one thing only - to keep the money flowing to weapons manufacturers. Until the likes of Halliburton grow a conscience, it will never end.

Right before the Iraq war started, my company an oil service company, lost 80% of our contracts with then Statoil to Halliburton. Later Statoil got many nice contracts world wide and also Iraq. coincidents? 

 

Edited August 3 by Hummin

[Lacessit]

On 7/31/2024 at 5:40 PM, wombat said:

A stronger response?

JFC...the west keeps prodding the bear.

The bear is only going to be prodded so far before it drops a nuke and then the west can throw its hands up in horror saying it wasn't us it wasn't us....NATO is like glass...I can see through it.

Nonsense. The bear is trying to expand, while east European countries want no part of Russia's moribund economic system. That's why they have all joined NATO.

 

Very unlikely the bear will drop a nuke. It went very quiet after Putin was informed US intelligence knew exactly where he was 24/7.

[Cameroni]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Nonsense. The bear is trying to expand, while east European countries want no part of Russia's moribund economic system. That's why they have all joined NATO.

 

Very unlikely the bear will drop a nuke. It went very quiet after Putin was informed US intelligence knew exactly where he was 24/7.

Totally poppycock. Russia is absolutely not trying to expand. As evidenced by the fact they do not claim the whole of Ukraine. There is ZERO evidence they want Poland or any other country. 

[Roo Island]

19 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The West is weak. A laughing stock.

 

Too preoccupied with pronouns and DEI. The likes of Russia and China would destroy us while we were still calculating what % of our military was non binary.

 

 

Russia can't even beat Ukraine!  China would never attack the West. For many reasons.

 

DEI is a weaponized term from the far right.

 

You obviously haven't studied military strengths at all

[Roo Island]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

Totally poppycock. Russia is absolutely not trying to expand. As evidenced by the fact they do not claim the whole of Ukraine. There is ZERO evidence they want Poland or any other country. 

It's Putin's long time stated objective to return Russia to It's former USSR glory. Just ask Moldova, Georgia, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, etc.

 

I'm guessing you're not aware of the land grabs over the past few decades?

[Cameroni]

5 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

It's Putin's long time stated objective to return Russia to It's former USSR glory. Just ask Moldova, Georgia, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, etc.

 

I'm guessing you're not aware of the land grabs over the past few decades?

I'm guessing you're not aware that Putin has made clear he is only annexing a part of the Ukraine, not the whole country. And that there is zero evidence that he's intending to annex Poland, or any other state. Latvia, Estonia and Moldova are not independent states? What evidence is there Putin will annex them? Zero. Same with Georgia and Ukraine. Those were only replies to US threats to put missiles there threatening Russia's existence. Like Ukraine, the fault of our Western politicians' incompetence. 

[Roo Island]

31 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I'm guessing you're not aware that Putin has made clear he is only annexing a part of the Ukraine, not the whole country. And that there is zero evidence that he's intending to annex Poland, or any other state. Latvia, Estonia and Moldova are not independent states? What evidence is there Putin will annex them? Zero. Same with Georgia and Ukraine. Those were only replies to US threats to put missiles there threatening Russia's existence. Like Ukraine, the fault of our Western politicians' incompetence. 

Are you reading RT.

 

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-admits-ukraine-invasion-is-an-imperial-war-to-return-russian-land/

 

Putin admits Ukraine invasion is an imperial war to “return” Russian land

[Cameroni]

The Atlantic Council, lol. A US disinformation think tank linked to the US government. You may want to get proper sources. You're kidding yourself.

 

That article refers to the  interview Putin gave with the Fox Journo, where Putin said parts of Ukraine were Russians and stressed the shared history with Ukraine. This is taken by this ludicrous propaganda article as implying Putin wants an imperial war to return russian land. Makes you laugh at least, such childish propaganda.

Edited August 3 by Cameroni

[candide]

3 hours ago, Cameroni said:

I'm guessing you're not aware that Putin has made clear he is only annexing a part of the Ukraine, not the whole country. And that there is zero evidence that he's intending to annex Poland, or any other state. Latvia, Estonia and Moldova are not independent states? What evidence is there Putin will annex them? Zero. Same with Georgia and Ukraine. Those were only replies to US threats to put missiles there threatening Russia's existence. Like Ukraine, the fault of our Western politicians' incompetence. 

When did the U.S. threaten to put offensive missiles "there"?

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, candide said:

When did the U.S. threaten to put offensive missiles "there"?

When it dangled the NATO carrot in front of Georgia and substantive steps were taken to allow Georgia membership of NATO, which Russia always made clear was unacceptable and provocation. Of course it was far more than that because if Georgia had become a member of NATO that would have implied close mlitary cooperation, including the possibility of stationing nuclear weaons, as NATO member Germany is doing now. If nuclear weapons were stationed in Georgia or Ukraine, that's as if Russia would station nuclear weapons in Belgium or Luxembourg in the case of France, or in Wales in the case England, or in Cuba in the case of the US. This was shown to be unacceptable to the US in the 60s, but Russia was expected to just accept it. It is quite clear that the Western politicians did no do their homework and have to take substantial blame for th current crisis in Ukraine and the previous one in Georgia.

[candide]

59 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

When it dangled the NATO carrot in front of Georgia and substantive steps were taken to allow Georgia membership of NATO, which Russia always made clear was unacceptable and provocation. Of course it was far more than that because if Georgia had become a member of NATO that would have implied close mlitary cooperation, including the possibility of stationing nuclear weaons, as NATO member Germany is doing now. If nuclear weapons were stationed in Georgia or Ukraine, that's as if Russia would station nuclear weapons in Belgium or Luxembourg in the case of France, or in Wales in the case England, or in Cuba in the case of the US. This was shown to be unacceptable to the US in the 60s, but Russia was expected to just accept it. It is quite clear that the Western politicians did no do their homework and have to take substantial blame for th current crisis in Ukraine and the previous one in Georgia.

But they did not threaten to put nuclear weapons there. Nuclear weapons have not been moved since the end of the cold war. NATO did not even put them in Poland or Romania, closer to Russia. This is pure fantasy!

[Cameroni]

7 hours ago, candide said:

But they did not threaten to put nuclear weapons there. Nuclear weapons have not been moved since the end of the cold war. NATO did not even put them in Poland or Romania, closer to Russia. This is pure fantasy!

 

I don't know if you follow the news at all, but NATO member Germany has just announced that new American nuclear weapons will be stationed in Germany by 2026. Before that the US announced that it had plans to station more nuclear weapons in NATO member Great Britain.

 

NATO is a military aliance and it is patently clear that increased military cooperation between NATO members includes the possibility of stationing nuclear weapons in NATO member's territories.

 

Sadly it's not fantasy, but a fact. And as everyone knows both Georgia and Ukraine have been governed by rabidly anti-Russian politicians before. The possibility of the US stationing nuclear weapons in Ukraine is very real. Indeed many Ukrainian politicians have demanded the Ukraine develop nuclear capability. And we all know that the US has already delivered weaponry to the Ukraine specifically intended to kill Russians, including tanks, missiles and more. 

 

This is particularly sad, because we had a time of rapprochement in the 1990s when Russia agreed to allow German unification, after receiving a promise and "iron clad" guarantees that NATO would not expand further eastwards than East Germany. At that time Russia bent over backwards to develop friendship with the west, even aiding American space exploration and there were many, many other areas of co-operation between Russia and the West. Many EU countries at the time considered scrapping visa requirements for Russians. Russia signalled clearly it hand friendly intentions, but alas, Russia was progressively deceived, insulted and threatened with military expansion by NATO contrary to the "iron clad" guarantees it received from the US. Russia extended a hand of friendship but was slapped in the face.

Edited August 4 by Cameroni

[candide]

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I don't know if you follow the news at all, but NATO member Germany has just announced that new American nuclear weapons will be stationed in Germany by 2026. Before that the US announced that it had plans to station more nuclear weapons in NATO member Great Britain.

 

NATO is a military aliance and it is patently clear that increased military cooperation between NATO members includes the possibility of stationing nuclear weapons in NATO member's territories.

 

Sadly it's not fantasy, but a fact. And as everyone knows both Georgia and Ukraine have been governed by rabidly anti-Russian politicians before. The possibility of the US stationing nuclear weapons in Ukraine is very real. Indeed many Ukrainian politicians have demanded the Ukraine develop nuclear capability.

No fact. In Germany and UK, there were already nuclear weapons, it's an improvementv and it only happened after Russia continuously threatened to use nuclear weapons.

The fact is that, before the invasion of Ukraine, there was no sign of increasing threat. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union,no nuclear weapons have been moved near Russia (it doesn't make much difference if they would be in Poland rather than Ukraine), European NATO military budgets have decreased, and U.S. military forces have also been reduced.

[Cameroni]

35 minutes ago, candide said:

No fact. In Germany and UK, there were already nuclear weapons, it's an improvementv and it only happened after Russia continuously threatened to use nuclear weapons.

The fact is that, before the invasion of Ukraine, there was no sign of increasing threat. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union,no nuclear weapons have been moved near Russia (it doesn't make much difference if they would be in Poland rather than Ukraine), European NATO military budgets have decreased, and U.S. military forces have also been reduced.

 

It is very much a fact that NATO member states have nuclear weapons pointed at Russia. And  it is equally very much a fact that NATO is a military alliance designed to increase military co-operation with the aim of intimidating, threatening, and if need be, fighting Russia. Had Georgia and Ukraine joined NATO it would have been very likely indeed that the US would have stationed nuclear weapons here.

 

Your premise does not make sense. IF NATO expansion eastwards had not been a threat to Russia, then why would Russia have invaded UKraine? The sole aim is to incorporat parts of the Ukraine and to weaken the country so it cannot join NATO. Why would Russia do this if there were no threat from NATO? We have already established that this notion of Putin being a new Hitler intent on incoporating Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden is devoid of any facts, and pure propaganda. There is absolutely no evidence for this. If Russia invaded Ukraine, think why it would do so. Because of the threat of NATO and Ukraine joining it.

 

".. in 1998, the New York Times editorial board warned: “The most important foreign policy decision America has faced since the end of the Cold War…  could prove to be a mistake of historic proportions.” And this: “It is delusional to believe that NATO expansion is not at its core an act that Russia will regard as hostile.”

 

"George Kennan—intellectual architect of the Cold War containment doctrine, a former ambassador to the USSR, and one of America’s wisest students of Russian affairs—spoke for the many dissenters in 1997 when he warned that NATO expansion “would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”

 

https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/why-nato-expansion-explains-russias-actions-in-ukraine/

 

To state that America's military budget or military forces decreased is naive beyond belief. America is armed sufficiently to destroy the world many times over, a percentage increase in spending or personnel is likea drop in an ocean.

 

Just as it is naive to believe NATO encroaching on the borders of Russia with Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine is not a threat to Russia. Especially since we've had advance warning of Russian sensibilities on this since the 1990s. Ukraine happened because of the false decisions taken by recent Western politcians. 

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

It is very much a fact that NATO member states have nuclear weapons pointed at Russia. And  it is equally very much a fact that NATO is a military alliance designed to increase military co-operation with the aim of intimidating, threatening, and if need be, fighting Russia. Had Georgia and Ukraine joined NATO it would have been very likely indeed that the US would have stationed nuclear weapons here.

 

Your premise does not make sense. IF NATO expansion eastwards had not been a threat to Russia, then why would Russia have invaded UKraine? The sole aim is to incorporat parts of the Ukraine and to weaken the country so it cannot join NATO. Why would Russia do this if there were no threat from NATO? We have already established that this notion of Putin being a new Hitler intent on incoporating Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden is devoid of any facts, and pure propaganda. There is absolutely no evidence for this. If Russia invaded Ukraine, think why it would do so. Because of the threat of NATO and Ukraine joining it.

 

".. in 1998, the New York Times editorial board warned: “The most important foreign policy decision America has faced since the end of the Cold War…  could prove to be a mistake of historic proportions.” And this: “It is delusional to believe that NATO expansion is not at its core an act that Russia will regard as hostile.”

 

"George Kennan—intellectual architect of the Cold War containment doctrine, a former ambassador to the USSR, and one of America’s wisest students of Russian affairs—spoke for the many dissenters in 1997 when he warned that NATO expansion “would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”

 

https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/why-nato-expansion-explains-russias-actions-in-ukraine/

 

To state that America's military budget or military forces decreased is naive beyond belief. America is armed sufficiently to destroy the world many times over, a percentage increase in spending or personnel is likea drop in an ocean.

 

Just as it is naive to believe NATO encroaching on the borders of Russia with Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine is not a threat to Russia. Especially since we've had advance warning of Russian sensibilities on this since the 1990s. Ukraine happened because of the false decisions taken by recent Western politcians. 

You're confusing facts with opinions. Your opinions are not balanced. 

Edited August 4 by stevenl

[candide]

33 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

It is very much a fact that NATO member states have nuclear weapons pointed at Russia. And  it is equally very much a fact that NATO is a military alliance designed to increase military co-operation with the aim of intimidating, threatening, and if need be, fighting Russia. Had Georgia and Ukraine joined NATO it would have been very likely indeed that the US would have stationed nuclear weapons here.

 

Your premise does not make sense. IF NATO expansion eastwards had not been a threat to Russia, then why would Russia have invaded UKraine? The sole aim is to incorporat parts of the Ukraine and to weaken the country so it cannot join NATO. Why would Russia do this if there were no threat from NATO? We have already established that this notion of Putin being a new Hitler intent on incoporating Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden is devoid of any facts, and pure propaganda. There is absolutely no evidence for this. If Russia invaded Ukraine, think why it would do so. Because of the threat of NATO and Ukraine joining it.

 

".. in 1998, the New York Times editorial board warned: “The most important foreign policy decision America has faced since the end of the Cold War…  could prove to be a mistake of historic proportions.” And this: “It is delusional to believe that NATO expansion is not at its core an act that Russia will regard as hostile.”

 

"George Kennan—intellectual architect of the Cold War containment doctrine, a former ambassador to the USSR, and one of America’s wisest students of Russian affairs—spoke for the many dissenters in 1997 when he warned that NATO expansion “would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”

 

https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/why-nato-expansion-explains-russias-actions-in-ukraine/

 

To state that America's military budget or military forces decreased is naive beyond belief. America is armed sufficiently to destroy the world many times over, a percentage increase in spending or personnel is likea drop in an ocean.

 

Just as it is naive to believe NATO encroaching on the borders of Russia with Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine is not a threat to Russia. Especially since we've had advance warning of Russian sensibilities on this since the 1990s. Ukraine happened because of the false decisions taken by recent Western politcians. 

Of course, they have nuclear weapons pointed at Russia, just like Russia has nuclear weapons pointed at them. But they did not move them closer to Russia and never showed any intent to do so. And both have anti-missile weapons locked on the missile bases.

 

Actually, do they need to put nuclear weapons closer to Russia? I doubt it. That have nuclear subs hidden in deep sea, close to Russia (and Russia close to the U.S.). These are the most dangerous threats as their position is unknown. Even small nuclear powers such as UK and France have enough nuclear heads in their subs to destroy Russia.

 

P.S. note the incoherence of your argumentation. Invading only part of Ukraine would not prevent them from joining NATO, it would have quite the opposite effect.

Edited August 4 by candide

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Of course, they have nuclear weapons pointed at Russia, just like Russia has nuclear weapons pointed at them. But they did not move them closer to Russia and never showed any intent to do so. And both have anti-missile weapons locked on the missile bases.

 

Actually, do they need to put nuclear weapons closer to Russia? I doubt it. That have nuclear subs hidden in deep sea, close to Russia (and Russia close to the U.S.). These are the most dangerous threats as their position is unknown. Even small nuclear powers such as UK and France have enough nuclear heads in their subs to destroy Russia.

 

P.S. note the incoherence of your argumentation. Invading only part of Ukraine would not prevent them from joining NATO, it would have quite the opposite effect.

NATO has moved ever closer to Russia, by expanding eastwards. Something America and Germany promised Russia NATO would never do. Falsely as we know now.

 

By expanding NATO membership eastwards beyond Latvia, Estonia, Czech Republic and Poland, but right into the underbelly of Russia, into Georgia (which at one point was given very detailed negotiations to join NATO), Crimea and Ukraine, Western politicians laid the foundations for the Ukraine war. Even America's most eminent academic of international relations, Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer, says this.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

 

Obviously you first have to move Nato closer and only then can you move the missiles closer. But that America is now going to deploy additional nuclear missiles in Germany and Great Britain leaves no doubt his could happen in Georgia and Ukraine, if they too join NATO.

 

Invading part of the Ukraine could easily destabilise Ukraine to such an extent that should it join NATO it would be meaningless because of the conditions in Ukraine. Obviously this would be preferably to Russia than a strong, stable, Ukraine, that invites the US to place nuclear missiles on the Russan border.

 

You argument is incoherent, why do you think Russia invaded part of Ukraine? To establish a new Imperial Russia? If that were the case where is the evidence for that? Apart from American think tank propaganda twisting Putin's words on Russian history to imply that is a blueprint for Imperial Russia, there is nohing in real word actions or statements by Russia that would imply Putin wants an Imperial Russia and will annex Poland, Sweden, Latvia etc. This is nonsense.

 

So what is your explanation for Russia invading Ukraine, candide? If it is not NATO's eastward expansion, what is the reason for the invasion of Ukraine?

Edited August 4 by Cameroni

[candide]

28 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

NATO has moved ever closer to Russia, by expanding eastwards. Something America and Germany promised Russia NATO would never do. Falsely as we know now.

 

By expanding NATO membership eastwards beyond Latvia, Estonia, Czech Republic and Poland, but right into the underbelly of Russia, into Georgia (which at one point was given very detailed negotiations to join NATO), Crimea and Ukraine, Western politicians laid the foundations for the Ukraine war. Even America's most eminent academic of international relations, Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer, says this.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

 

Obviously you first have to move Nato closer and only then can you move the missiles closer. But that America is now going to deploy additional nuclear missiles in Germany and Great Britain leaves no doubt his could happen in Georgia and Ukraine, if they too join NATO.

 

Invading part of the Ukraine could easily destabilise Ukraine to such an extent that should it join NATO it would be meaningless because of the conditions in Ukraine. Obviously this would be preferably to Russia than a strong, stable, Ukraine, that invites the US to place nuclear missiles on the Russan border.

 

You argument is incoherent, why do you think Russia invaded part of Ukraine? To establish a new Imperial Russia? If that were the case where is the evidence for that? Apart from American think tank propaganda twisting Putin's words on Russian history to imply that is a blueprint for Imperial Russia, there is nohing in real word actions or statements by Russia that would imply Putin wants an Imperial Russia and will annex Poland, Sweden, Latvia etc. This is nonsense.

 

So what is your explanation for Russia invading Ukraine, candide? If it is not NATO's eastward expansion, what is the reason for the invasion of Ukraine?

The (not really a) promise was made to the Soviet Union, which has been dissolved, in particular because of Russia's declaration of independence in June 1991.

 

Putting missiles in Poland is more or less the same as in Ukraine and the U.S. never showed any intent to do so. This is a false argument.

 

Why did Putin invade Uraine accirding to me?

- for internal political reasons  as there was nothing else he was able to do. Putin has been unable to develop Russia and provide well-being to its citizen. Russia's GDP is similar to Italy, and did not increase between 2012 and 2022.

- for the same reason, Russia needed resources located in Ukraine, not only natural and industrial resources, but also human resources (Russia population has been decreasing by 1 million during the pandemic.

[Cameroni]

21 minutes ago, candide said:

The (not really a) promise was made to the Soviet Union, which has been dissolved, in particular because of Russia's declaration of independence in June 1991.

 

Putting missiles in Poland is more or less the same as in Ukraine and the U.S. never showed any intent to do so. This is a false argument.

 

Why did Putin invade Uraine accirding to me?

- for internal political reasons  as there was nothing else he was able to do. Putin has been unable to develop Russia and provide well-being to its citizen. Russia's GDP is similar to Italy, and did not increase between 2012 and 2022.

- for the same reason, Russia needed resources located in Ukraine, not only natural and industrial resources, but also human resources (Russia population has been decreasing by 1 million during the pandemic.

 

It is true that James Baker's promise of "iron clad guarantees" that NATO would not expand eastwards  was first given to the then USSR, but of course later Warren Christopher repeated the same to Yeltsin, then leader of the new Russia.

 

Whilst Christopher lied about it, and the transcripts of his meeting were classified in the West, they have now been declassified and lo and behold:

 

"Declassified documents from U.S. and Russian archives show that U.S. officials led Russian President Boris Yeltsin to believe in 1993 that the Partnership for Peace was the alternative to NATO expansion, rather than a precursor to it, while simultaneously planning for expansion after Yeltsin’s re-election bid in 1996 and telling the Russians repeatedly that the future European security system would include, not exclude, Russia."

 

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard

 

It is no true that the US has never shown intent to put nuclear weapons in Poland, in fact Poland requested this and there have been negotiations to share US nuclear weapons with Poland.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/04/22/polish-president-wants-nato-nukes-for-deterring-russia/

 

It is true, however, that Russia's economy is smaller than Texas' economy. That is precisely the reason why this proganda of Putin invading Europe to reconstitute Imperal Russia or the Soviet Union is so silly. Military might is built on economic foundations. For this reasonalone Putin could never invade European countries and occupy them long term. Even occupying Ukraine would be beyond Russian capabilities, which is also why they can't do it.

 

However, to argue that Putin squandered Russian resources in orde to gain popularity, when he was already the most popular man in Russian politics is not really convincing. The alternative that Putin really considered Ukrainian accession to NATO an existential threat is far more convincing to explain the invasion.

 

Equally, Russia is wasting more resources than it is gaining, it has made no attempts to invade and occupy the Western Ukraine, and some of the juicier areas full of resources are not occupied by Russia. Again, the alternative, that Russia felt misled, deceived and afraid of Western encirclement by NATO expansion is far more likely an explanation.

 

 

[candide]

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

It is true that James Baker's promise of "iron clad guarantees" that NATO would not expand eastwards  was first given to the then USSR, but of course later Warren Christopher repeated the same to Yeltsin, then leader of the new Russia.

 

Whilst Christopher lied about it, and the transcripts of his meeting were classified in the West, they have now been declassified and lo and behold:

 

"Declassified documents from U.S. and Russian archives show that U.S. officials led Russian President Boris Yeltsin to believe in 1993 that the Partnership for Peace was the alternative to NATO expansion, rather than a precursor to it, while simultaneously planning for expansion after Yeltsin’s re-election bid in 1996 and telling the Russians repeatedly that the future European security system would include, not exclude, Russia."

 

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard

 

It is no true that the US has never shown intent to put nuclear weapons in Poland, in fact Poland requested this and there have been negotiations to share US nuclear weapons with Poland.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/04/22/polish-president-wants-nato-nukes-for-deterring-russia/

 

It is true, however, that Russia's economy is smaller than Texas' economy. That is precisely the reason why this proganda of Putin invading Europe to reconstitute Imperal Russia or the Soviet Union is so silly. Military might is built on economic foundations. For this reasonalone Putin could never invade European countries and occupy them long term. Even occupying Ukraine would be beyond Russian capabilities, which is also why they can't do it.

 

However, to argue that Putin squandered Russian resources in orde to gain popularity, when he was already the most popular man in Russian politics is not really convincing. The alternative that Putin really considered Ukrainian accession to NATO an existential threat is far more convincing to explain the invasion.

 

Equally, Russia is wasting more resources than it is gaining, it has made no attempts to invade and occupy the Western Ukraine, and some of the juicier areas full of resources are not occupied by Russia. Again, the alternative, that Russia felt misled, deceived and afraid of Western encirclement by NATO expansion is far more likely an explanation.

 

 

You seem to be confused with dates. Poland asked for nukes after Ukraine invasion and official nuclear threats by Russia. No talk about nukes before that.

 

Lol! Putin was popular, with his opposition muzzled! 😀

 

I agree with you that it's currently costing Russia a lot of resources. However  he initially thought it would be easy. He was wrong and then went on to avoid losing face (and his job).

Edited August 4 by candide

[Cameroni]

20 minutes ago, candide said:

You seem to be confused with dates. Poland asked for nukes after Ukraine invasion and official nuclear threats by Russia. No talk about nukes before that.

 

Lol! Putin was popular, with his opposition muzzled! 😀

 

I agree with you that it's currently costing Russia a lot of resources. However  he initially thought it would be easy. He was wrong and then went on to avoid losing face (and his job).

 

Not at all confused, nuclear sharing has been going on for a long time, the Netherlands confirmed 22 nuclear weapons in 2013 at the Volkl base and Poland has publicly stated that they have been in discussions with the US to receive nuclear weapons "for some time". Obviously these talks are held behind closed doors and nobody knows when they really started, but the fact that Poland is pushing hard and the US is prepared for Poland to host nuclear weapons is well documented.

 

Putin is incredibly popular in Russia and no opposition leader had any hope of taking his place. He had no reason to invade Ukraine for popularity, that idea, I think is a bit fanciful.

 

Look, we don't know what Putin thinks, you don't and I don't either. However, you can be sure of one thing, he could drop a nuclear weapon in Ukraine and easily defeat Ukraine that way. In return the US would never retaliate, nor would Britain or France, because they would risk nuclear annihilation. So this war is already lost for Ukraine. It is just a question of what the peace agreementwill look like. But a peace agreemen there will be. And Russia will win this war.

[candide]

28 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Not at all confused, nuclear sharing has been going on for a long time, the Netherlands confirmed 22 nuclear weapons in 2013 at the Volkl base and Poland has publicly stated that they have been in discussions with the US to receive nuclear weapons "for some time". Obviously these talks are held behind closed doors and nobody knows when they really started, but the fact that Poland is pushing hard and the US is prepared for Poland to host nuclear weapons is well documented.

 

Putin is incredibly popular in Russia and no opposition leader had any hope of taking his place. He had no reason to invade Ukraine for popularity, that idea, I think is a bit fanciful.

 

Look, we don't know what Putin thinks, you don't and I don't either. However, you can be sure of one thing, he could drop a nuclear weapon in Ukraine and easily defeat Ukraine that way. In return the US would never retaliate, nor would Britain or France, because they would risk nuclear annihilation. So this war is already lost for Ukraine. It is just a question of what the peace agreementwill look like. But a peace agreemen there will be. And Russia will win this war.

Again, pure speculation.

NL is not close to Russian border, as far as I know.

[Fortean1]

On 8/3/2024 at 3:34 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

 

They made a re imagining  of the Time Machine? Say it's not true. Some awful woke mishmash no doubt.

 

I must have blinked and missed him as Winston ( did they not have a Brit available? ). My favourite of his is A Gathering of Eagles, a tribute to the men that flew the deterrence to Russia way back before ICBMs ( those B52s have been around for such a long time- now that's what a good bit of kit looks like ).

 

I knew someone in tankies in BAOR and he said they had a life span of about 7 minutes if it really kicked off. Nukes would have been the only realistic response. Airfix used to put out a model kit of a big battlefield nuclear shell gun. I presume they actually existed.

I think three or four CGI infused remakes appeared.

 

In January 1973, assigned to a communications center at Camp Samae San, Thailand.  The B-52 base at U-Tapao RTNAB was a mile or so to our east just beyond MARS hill.  I lived in a bungalow a few kilometers from the air base.  If I climbed the hill topped with tapioca fields I could easily see the air base.  I took photos of B-52s and once a U-2.  Helo from the air base came over to check me out.  I hid the 35mm camera in the brush.

 

Yes, atomic cannon were deployed to Germany roughly between 1954 and 1963.  Here is a history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_atomic_cannon My friend and mentor Charlie Hedgpeth (RIP) worked communications support for one of these nuclear cannons.  HF and Morse Code with SPECAT coding.

 

Charlie was at the Choisin Reservoir in the Korean War providing radio and teletype support to the U.S. Marines and Allies.  He said during the retreat they chanced across a Chinese Army medical unit.  Someone began firing and the small unit, maybe 15, was wiped out.

Edited August 4 by Fortean1
left out Korean War

[gamb00ler]

On 7/31/2024 at 5:40 PM, wombat said:

A stronger response?

JFC...the west keeps prodding the bear.

The bear is only going to be prodded so far before it drops a nuke and then the west can throw its hands up in horror saying it wasn't us it wasn't us....NATO is like glass...I can see through it.

You've now made obvious the reason you chose your screen name.

[gamb00ler]

On 7/31/2024 at 7:49 PM, RayC said:

 

Err ... Ukraine became a sovereign state in 1991.

There you go again.. prodding the bear with a sharp pointed fact.

[Fortean1]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Not at all confused, nuclear sharing has been going on for a long time, the Netherlands confirmed 22 nuclear weapons in 2013 at the Volkl base and Poland has publicly stated that they have been in discussions with the US to receive nuclear weapons "for some time". Obviously these talks are held behind closed doors and nobody knows when they really started, but the fact that Poland is pushing hard and the US is prepared for Poland to host nuclear weapons is well documented.

 

Putin is incredibly popular in Russia and no opposition leader had any hope of taking his place. He had no reason to invade Ukraine for popularity, that idea, I think is a bit fanciful.

 

Look, we don't know what Putin thinks, you don't and I don't either. However, you can be sure of one thing, he could drop a nuclear weapon in Ukraine and easily defeat Ukraine that way. In return the US would never retaliate, nor would Britain or France, because they would risk nuclear annihilation. So this war is already lost for Ukraine. It is just a question of what the peace agreementwill look like. But a peace agreemen there will be. And Russia will win this war.

During a time of increasing tension with Russia we would share nuclear depth charges with the Dutch Navy.  Nukes are not stored in the Netherlands.  Poland is out of the question as too close to Russia and Belarus.  Crimea was stolen in 2014, and the West did next to nothing.  This fantasy that Russia fears NATO is plain weird.  NATO is a defensive system.  I worked the NATO communications center in Naples, Italy 1977 to 1980.  Your recall of history is incomplete and smacks of wanting Putin to be successful in Ukraine.  This allegation that Putin only wanted to take part of Ukraine is plain wrong.  Did you forget the Russian tank column north of Kyiv?  Perhaps they were looking for mushrooms?

[Cameroni]

44 minutes ago, Fortean1 said:

  Nukes are not stored in the Netherlands. 

 

Wrong.

 

"On 10 June 2013, former Dutch prime minister Ruud Lubbers confirmed the existence of 22 shared nuclear bombs at Volkel Air Base.[22] This was inadvertently confirmed again in June 2019 when a public draft report to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly was discovered to reference the existence of US nuclear weapons at Volkel, as well as locations in Belgium, Italy, Germany, and Turkey."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

 

Poland is not out of the question, the US and Poland are discussing including Poland in nuclear sharing.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/04/22/polish-president-wants-nato-nukes-for-deterring-russia/

 

The Russian actions in Crimea came AFTER 2008 when NATO had revealed it was breaking its "iron clad guarantee" to Russia not to expand NATO. Russia had long before then repeatedly marked a line in the sand that NATO expansion in Georgia and Ukraine is unacceptable.

 

Quote

This fantasy that Russia fears NATO is plain weird.  NATO is a defensive system.  

 

Lol, yes only a "defensive system" pointing nuclear weapons at you from many countries and encircling you, creeping ever closer. So very defensive, lol.

 

Quote

This allegation that Putin only wanted to take part of Ukraine is plain wrong. 

 

No, you're plain wrong, on literally everything. Putin is only interested in taking a part of the Ukraine, the Donbass region. This is what Putin has said repeatedly and what the military operations show. As you well know the Kiev convoy halted and did not attack Kiev. All the real fighting was elsewhere. Possibly it was a dstraction to fool the enemy that Russia was about to strike Kiev, to confuse the enemy. It certainly succeeded in confusing everyone since to this day there is just speculation about this convoy. But the real fighting was elsewhere.

[WayWokeWhiteGuy]

Putin will hold out hoping tRump is elected, but when tRump loses, Putin will nuke Ukraine