Europe Braces for Escalation: Germany Mobilizes NATO Troops Amid Putin's Nuclear Threats

[metisdead]

Posts with derogatory nicknames, intentional misspellings, or personal remarks will be removed. Spell names correctly for all sides of the debate.

[transam]

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

There is thick, and then there is you

Indeed, correct, those who are 'thick', westerners who support Putin's invasion of a free sovereign nation, then there is me, and most who think like me regarding the appalling murdering regime that you support.. 

[transam]

A few interesting interviews from folk in the know from the Western perspective.......😉

 

For the Western wannabe trainee Putin cadets here, worth listening to......😉

 

 

 

 

[jas007]

I won't be so quick to believe any of the Western propaganda.  

[transam]

6 minutes ago, jas007 said:

I won't be so quick to believe any of the Western propaganda.  

Weeeeeeell, for certain Western countries do not believe Russian propaganda, after all, NATO was formed in 1949, guess why.........................😉

[jas007]

3 hours ago, transam said:

Weeeeeeell, for certain Western countries do not believe Russian propaganda, after all, NATO was formed in 1949, guess why.........................😉

This isn't 1949, in case you missed that little detail. Moreover, neither the USA nor the entirety of NATO has the military capacity to fight a prolonged ground war against Russia.  The war would escalate, as wars always do, and Western  Europe's capital cities would be obliterated.. Paris, London, Berlin, Warsaw, and various military targets. They would all be gone in less than 30 minutes. 

 

What you don't seem to understand that it's not a question of right or wrong.  You can be right and still end up dead. Russia perceives an existential threat and it will respond accordingly.  Ukraine NATO membership and the Russia-speaking areas of Ukraine are not worth sacrificing the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Billions, perhaps, if things get out of hand. 

[transam]

4 minutes ago, jas007 said:

This isn't 1949, in case you missed that little detail. Moreover, neither the USA nor the entirety of NATO has the military capacity to fight a prolonged ground war against Russia.  The war would escalate, as wars always do, and Western  Europe's capital cities would be obliterated.. Paris, London, Berlin, Warsaw, and various military targets. They would all be gone in less than 30 minutes. 

 

What you don't seem to understand that it's not a question of right or wrong.  You can be right and still end up dead. Russia perceives an existential threat and it will respond accordingly.  Ukraine NATO membership and the Russia-speaking areas of Ukraine are not worth sacrificing the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Billions, perhaps, if things get out of hand. 

What threat did they have after WWII to cause the instigation of NATO.........🤭

 

If Putin used nukes, he would also cause the obliteration of his own dictatorship, and he knows it, he also knows that he is a marked target by his own people, given the chance, as too many important folk have been taken out.....

[jas007]

16 minutes ago, transam said:

What threat did they have after WWII to cause the instigation of NATO.........🤭

 

If Putin used nukes, he would also cause the obliteration of his own dictatorship, and he knows it, he also knows that he is a marked target by his own people, given the chance, as too many important folk have been taken out.....

You need to study up a little bit on the MAD doctrine and game theory.  It's all pretty much International Relations 101. It all makes sense if everyone involved is a rational actor.  Today, rational actors seem to be in short supply. If Putin, for example, were to perceive a threat of a potential first strike by an irrational actor, he might be tempted to do his own first strike.  Use your nukes or lose them.  It's all nuts at this point.  Delusional people are currently running America. 

[Tailwagsdog]

On 11/22/2024 at 7:13 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

When I read insulting posts like yours it makes me realise that I am probably superior to at least one person on the planet.

Hurry up and enlist in the Russian army they are offering sacks of roubles for superior talented geniuses like yourself ...please

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Tailwagsdog said:

Hurry up and enlist in the Russian army they are offering sacks of roubles for superior talented geniuses like yourself ...please

Pathetic or what? I'm on record on here saying I'm against the war, ergo why would I support either side?

Posters that are particularly vocal about supporting Ukraine might want to join them though. They might even make it to the front lines before the end happens. Likely on January 21.

Even better, the guys in Kursk need all the help they can get before they are wiped out.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, jas007 said:

You need to study up a little bit on the MAD doctrine and game theory.  It's all pretty much International Relations 101. It all makes sense if everyone involved is a rational actor.  Today, rational actors seem to be in short supply. If Putin, for example, were to perceive a threat of a potential first strike by an irrational actor, he might be tempted to do his own first strike.  Use your nukes or lose them.  It's all nuts at this point.  Delusional people are currently running America. 

Given the entire idea that one side or the other has the ability to eliminate the planet as a host for humanity and most other species is insane in itself, so why expect politicians to be rational, when faced with the ultimate insanity?

If the Vogons had to decide if humanity is worth saving, or being exterminated as a threat to the galaxy, I wonder what they would decide?

[RayC]

On 11/23/2024 at 2:26 PM, jas007 said:

 I think the point of "Mutually Assured Destruction" is that, in theory, rational actors would have no reason to use nukes. as their use would be not in their best interest.   But it all falls apart when it becomes obvious that one side is not acting in a rational manner.  It's a game that can't be won. 

 

That's the danger the world is facing now.  The US is acting in a way that is not rational if one assumes that, at some point, Russia will no longer be "bluffing."  They make that assumption, but is it correct, necessarily?  I think not.  To think otherwise is either remarkably evil or remarkably stupid.   Billions of lives are being risked.  

 

 

 

On 11/23/2024 at 6:48 PM, jas007 said:

Russian rhetoric?  If you ask me, it's the only sensible explanation for the stupidly of trying to start WW III, which is exactly what the current administration seems to be trying to do   People think that such a thing can't happen, but it absolutely can.   Hopefully, the world will make it through the next two months and Trump will tell Zelensky to make a deal or lose all funding.  What's left of Ukraine can.still be saved. perhaps.  

 

I'd agree with much of what you say but not with the implication that Biden is - or has been - the only player guilty of irrational acts.

 

Russia invaded Ukraine, which shares a border with, amongst others, Poland, a country with a long history of conflict with Russia.

 

Did Putin really believe that Poland - and by extension, the other EU member states, could and should have stood idly by while he pursued his expansionist policy?

[jas007]

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

Did Putin really believe that Poland - and by extension, the other EU member states, could and should have stood idly by while he pursued his expansionist policy?

 Putin did what he did for a lot of reasons, not the least of which was to protect the Russians living in certain areas of Ukraine. I think the involvement of the US CIA in the various color revolutions was another factor,, as was the presene of corrupt Nazi elements in Ukraine.  And don't forget the history of the region within the backdrop of NATO slowly surrounding Russia.  As they say, history doesn't always repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes. Invasions of Russia typically come through Ukraine. Napoleon tried it. Hitler tried it.  Russia lost 21 million people in WW II.  They don't want a repeat. 

 

Like it or not, Russia has a legitimate sphere of influence in the region and a legitimate security interest in protecting its borders. To pretend that NATO is simply a "defensive alliance" and no threat to Russia is obvious nonsense.. 

 

 

[TedG]

On 11/24/2024 at 4:44 AM, jas007 said:

This isn't 1949, in case you missed that little detail. Moreover, neither the USA nor the entirety of NATO has the military capacity to fight a prolonged ground war against Russia.  The war would escalate, as wars always do, and Western  Europe's capital cities would be obliterated.. Paris, London, Berlin, Warsaw, and various military targets. They would all be gone in less than 30 minutes. 

Three years later Russian can’t conquer Ukraine.   Which means Russia has little chance of conducting a ground war against NATO. 

[TedG]

3 hours ago, jas007 said:

 Putin did what he did for a lot of reasons, not the least of which was to protect the Russians living in certain areas of Ukraine. I think the involvement of the US CIA in the various color revolutions was another factor,, as was the presene of corrupt Nazi elements in Ukraine.  And don't forget the history of the region within the backdrop of NATO slowly surrounding Russia.  As they say, history doesn't always repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes. Invasions of Russia typically come through Ukraine. Napoleon tried it. Hitler tried it.  Russia lost 21 million people in WW II.  They don't want a repeat. 

 

Like it or not, Russia has a legitimate sphere of influence in the region and a legitimate security interest in protecting its borders. To pretend that NATO is simply a "defensive alliance" and no threat to Russia is obvious nonsense.. 

 

 

Is this you Putin? 

[TedG]

3 hours ago, jas007 said:

 

 

Like it or not, Russia has a legitimate sphere of influence in the region and a legitimate security interest in protecting its borders. To pretend that NATO is simply a "defensive alliance" and no threat to Russia is obvious nonsense.. 

 

 

 

No nation wants to be in the sphere of influence of Russia.  

[0ffshore360]

The brinkmanship game is being pushed to the limit .

The greatest potential for a player to step over the brink belongs to those in the NATO alliance at this time IMO.

It is most likely correct that the utilization of the missiles Ukraine is now "permitted" to direct to preselected targets well inside Russia are under the control of NATO forces given the sophisticated and security protected systems required to program flight paths.

This latest retaliatory move from Putin is the demonstration of previously unused armaments of greater lethal capacity with the attached reminder same missiles can carry nuclear warheads in the event of retaliation to more openly direct NATO involvement. As such it has not actually escalated rhetoric but graphically provided evidence of capacity .

The motivation to provoke and potentially initiate a deadly direct macho conflagration with specific NATO members in opposition to others with realistic political pragmatism is also evidentially observable in every other conflict killing the victims of opposing desire for domination.

 

 

 

 

[jas007]

2 hours ago, TedG said:

 

No nation wants to be in the sphere of influence of Russia.  

Like it or not, countries are where they are and can't be moved around.  Eastern Europe has been in conflict for centuries. It's an important area.

[jas007]

2 hours ago, TedG said:

Three years later Russian can’t conquer Ukraine.   Which means Russia has little chance of conducting a ground war against NATO. 

Russia could. have flattened Ukraine a long time ago.  That wasn't the objective, though, as I'm sure you must know.