Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Dont know a thing about war, the military and such but didn't this guy who had his merchant army do the same and basically made it to Moscow?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I don't know you can equate the two. Noriega was a drug trafficker and dictator, Ukraine is a democracy.

 

Russian "interests" are in getting the Soviet Union back, Putin has repeatedly said so. That ship sailed long ago.

 

Well, in relation to the point I was making, that smaller neighbouring countries of large powerful countries have to take account of the interests of the latter it is clearly irrelevant what political system a country has. It is just a valid dictate of offensive realism.

 

Noriega actually had strong associations with Cuban intelligence, as well as being a drug dealer. The US did not seem to mind the drug dealing, it was when they found out Noriega was supplying Cuban intelligence with passports and shipping restricted military equipment to Cuba (Noriega was all about money), that the US used a pretext to invade Panama.

 

I'm not equating the political systems, I am equating their real position in international relations, both were neighbours of very large powerful countries who showed a blatant disregard for the interests of that large neighbour. Panama paid the price, and so did the Ukraine.

 

This idea that Putin wants to bing back the old Soviet Union is really just propaganda that you can't take seriouly. Putin never said that. He waxed lyrical about the joint historical roots of Ukrainians and Russians, something every Russian believes, and this was spun by the Atlantic Council and others as evidence of Russian Imperial ambitions. It's just poor propaganda.

 

What Putin actually said was:

 

"Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains."

in New York Times 20 February 2000; a similar remark was attributed to General Alexander Lebed in St Petersburg Times (Florida) 28 June 1996

 

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001/q-oro-ed5-00016963

 

In the west they usually only quote the first part of that sentence, which obviously distorts the meaning substantially.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

 

 

IMO the Russian leadership is focused in entirely the wrong direction. NATO is a defensive pact, although of course the Kremlin does not see it that way.

 

It was pretty obvious when the NATO treaty was signed that it was directed against Russia. The aim being to contain and if need be fight Russia.

 

If some people in your neighbourhood armed themselves and issued a declaration patently directed against you, then moved ever closer to your house, maybe you would not see that as such a defensive set up. Pehaps you would get concerned, the way Russia got concerned.

 

One man's defense is another man's offense and vice vcersa.

  • Haha 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I'd be concerned if they had nukes. Tell me who in Eastern Europe did, after the Soviet Union fell. Only Ukraine, who gave them up in 1994.

 

From the viewpoint of countries such as Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria. Romania etc. they did not want to be under the Russian jackboot again, with everything siphoned off to Moscow.

 

The NATO pact was quite moribund, until Putin invaded the Donbas. Another of his miscalculations. Russia can bitch to sympathetic ears like yours, cuts no ice with me. A self-inflicted wound.

 

I think it's fair to say that NATO was moribund after 1990, when Russia agreed to allow Germany to unify. I still remember the euphoria and how people were questioning the very need for NATO, now that Russia is "one of us". Remember how Russia implemented western economic reform, co-operated with the US on space stations, and how Putin even talked of being part of the EU?

 

At that time, indeed NATO had seemed to lose all relevance and appeared, as you say 'moribund'. However, instead of creating a new security framework, as older Bush and Baker had promised Russia, America chose to revive NATO. This climaxed in the 2008 NATO conference in Romania when it was announced that Ukraine and Georgia would become members, eventually.

 

We see the result now, with war in Ukraine, a direct result of this foolish American policy. NATO was not a "self-inflicted" wound, it was a problem the West created for Russia, Ukraine and all of us taxpayers who pay for it.

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
15 hours ago, steven100 said:

well I guess your right .....   but if he was killed then he couldn't do anything could he .... 

Are you for real?

You think no one else would take over and turn Europe to rubble?

  • Haha 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, steven100 said:

The US and Nato aren't going to bow to Putin's nuclear threat forever .... 

they will react when the time is right ....    and that could be coming soon.

 

they don't listen to his threats anymore ....    the boy who cried wolf   "

They should have never listened. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, steven100 said:

The US and Nato aren't going to bow to Putin's nuclear threat forever .... 

they will react when the time is right ....    and that could be coming soon.

 

they don't listen to his threats anymore ....    the boy who cried wolf   "

LOL. Actually using a nuclear weapon is not something that can be overlooked, so how can they prove that they will use a nuke if they consider it necessary without escalating

to MAD?

 

I look forward to reading your considered and relevant response.

Posted
5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Actually using a nuclear weapon is not something that can be overlooked, so how can they prove that they will use a nuke if they consider it necessary without escalating

to MAD?

 

I look forward to reading your considered and relevant response.

LOL.   That's fine what you think.    I'm saying the US & Nato don't listen to Putin's threats anymore. 

 

They will act on him when the time is right,  and that may be coming soon.       imo

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, steven100 said:

LOL.   That's fine what you think.    I'm saying the US & Nato don't listen to Putin's threats anymore. 

 

They will act on him when the time is right,  and that may be coming soon.       imo

Putin the paper tiger and his "colleagues" in Moscow are smelling the failure. Watch out for windows!

  • Thumbs Up 1

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...