Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I heard that as well and the evidence of the corruption is very public.  Yanukovych in particular was worth bililons, pocketing development funds. If the Ukraine ever becomes a member of the EU it will bankrupt and break up the EU for sure.

 My cousin lives in Kiev and I have been several times. The cops rolled me over for planted drugs ($700 bribe to make it go away), so I don't have a fond memory of Kiev - the girls were cute, though. 

  • Thumbs Up 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You are quite wrong, the Germans care very much about Nordstream. Only 2 days ago Gemany served Poand with an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian national. A suprising way not to care about it, to launch a full scale investigation and issue an arrest warrant in Poland, don't you think?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnvyz1472rpo

 

Nordstream was already finished. Just the registration process was put on ice. Hungary et al still get gas from Russia. Following elections and the end of the Ukraine war it would be conceivable that Germany could revive the Nordstream project. The pipeline is aleady built.

 

If the pipeline was not important, why did Ukraine go to all the trouble to build bombs, dive into the sea and destroy the pipes?

 

Germans are not stupid and able to learn from their mistakes. They have learned they cannot depend on Russia. It's a strategic issue.

 

About the motives of the Ukrainians who bombed the pipeline, If I remember well, at the time of the bombing, the decision to stop all Russian gas imports had not been made.

 

Yes, the investigation is going on, as it's a law-based country, and the German government is likely not happy about it, on principle. However, I doubt that they care that much, and also that they intend to use a large amount of Russian gas again in a next future.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, candide said:

Germans are not stupid and able to learn from their mistakes. They have learned they cannot depend on Russia. It's a strategic issue.

 

About the motives of the Ukrainians who bombed the pipeline, If I remember well, at the time of the bombing, the decision to stop all Russian gas imports had not been made.

 

Yes, the investigation is going on, as it's a law-based country, and the German government is likely not happy about it, on principle. However, I doubt that they care that much, and also that they intend to use a large amount of Russian gas again in a next future.

 

 

 

That's the view of people like this juvenile Annalena Baerbock, who really should be running a kindergarten not  Germany's foreign ministry. However, Ms Baerbock will not be around forever. Political views change, just look at Willy Brandt.

 

Who knows what the future will bring. If we could predict it we will all be lottery winners, right candide?

  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 2
Posted
20 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I did not say in "every" NATO country, but American nuclear weapons ARE stationed in several NATO member states.

 

Poland and the US are negotiating as we speak about Poland receiving US nuclear weapons.

 

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

 

Obviously the possibility of a country like Ukraine, that has in the past seen many calling for its own nuclear weapons, then also using "nuclear sharing" to arm itself is very real.

It seems you have some problems with chronology. They negotiate now, because of the invasion of Ukraine and the repeated threats by Russia to use nuclear weapons. It cannot be the cause of the Russian war.

 

There was absolutely no talk in NATO to   put nuclear weapons nearer to the Russian border. They did not do it and did not intend to do it, before Russia started to openly and officially make nuclear threats. It's a fake argument to justify the Russian invasion.

  • Like 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

That's the view of people like this juvenile Annalena Baerbock, who really should be running a kindergarten not  Germany's foreign ministry. However, Ms Baerbock will not be around forever. Political views change, just look at Willy Brandt.

 

Who knows what the future will bring. If we could predict it we will all be lottery winners, right candide?

You are confusing "view" and strategic analysis. It is obvious now that Germany and other European countries must not be dependent on Russia. It's also not a concern with only Russia, as the current debate about strategic sovereignty in the EU is highlighting.

  • Like 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

sheeple who refuse to think

 

When you have nothing call those you don't agree with sheeple. :saai:

 aww Brian I was just accused of burrowing my head and took it in good humour - Hare today gone tomorrow!

  • Haha 2
Posted
1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

 aww Brian I was just accused of burrowing my head and took it in good humour - Hare today gone tomorrow!

Your Russian inspired version of humour is not amusing and very telling and you still have nothing

Posted

@freeworld I have just removed over 20 trolling emoji's that you placed on various posts in this topic within the last few minutes. Another trolling rampage like that and action will be taken.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Posted
17 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Again, you keep putting words in my mouth, I never said Poland's negotiations to obtain nuclear weapons were a cause of the Ukraine war. However, the possibility that Ukraine could become a member of NATO and request nuclear sharing most likely did play a role in considerations in Russia.

 

How do you know there was no intention to extend nuclear sharing to some of the new NATO states, like is now being considered for Poland? How do you know what talks are held behind closed doors?

 

What we know for a fact, several NATO member states do participate in nuclear sharing and have US nuclear weapons stationed in their territory. In 2008 NATO declared Ukraine will become a member of NATO. Ukrainian politicians have called for nuclear weapons of their own LONG BEFORE the Ukraine war.

Fact is that no nuclear weapon has been moved nearer to the Russian border, and no such intent has ever shown, before Russia started to make nuclear threats.

  • Like 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, candide said:

Fact is that no nuclear weapon has been moved nearer to the Russian border, and no such intent has ever shown, before Russia started to make nuclear threats.

 

America has been arming Ukraine with ever more lethal weapons. It is almost certain once the war is over Ukraine will participate in nuclear sharing after it becomes a NATO member. Ukrainians have demanded nuclear weapons for decades.

 

Of course NATO can't grant Ukraine NATO membership now when it is at war with Russia, because that would mean going to war with Russia. But once the peace settlement is in place it will be a question of time only before Ukraine becomes a NATO member and participates in nuclear sharing.

  • Agree 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

America has been arming Ukraine with ever more lethal weapons. It is almost certain once the war is over Ukraine will participate in nuclear sharing after it becomes a NATO member. Ukrainians have demanded nuclear weapons for decades.

 

Of course NATO can't grant Ukraine NATO membership now when it is at war with Russia, because that would mean going to war with Russia. But once the peace settlement is in place it will be a question of time only before Ukraine becomes a NATO member and participates in nuclear sharing.

Guessing..............😂

Did I get a proper answer from you as to why Sweden & Finland asked to join NATO....?

  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

America has been arming Ukraine with ever more lethal weapons. It is almost certain once the war is over Ukraine will participate in nuclear sharing after it becomes a NATO member. Ukrainians have demanded nuclear weapons for decades.

 

Of course NATO can't grant Ukraine NATO membership now when it is at war with Russia, because that would mean going to war with Russia. But once the peace settlement is in place it will be a question of time only before Ukraine becomes a NATO member and participates in nuclear sharing.

It's not certain and it's post invasion.

It's not an argument to justify the invasion. The same chronological causal problem again. You are justifying an event with arguments dealing with what may happen after the event.

It's a fallacious argumentation.

  • Like 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...