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

[jacob29]

11 minutes ago, jas007 said:

You don't seem to understand.  How is being dead in your best interest? 

 

How is it in Russia's interest? 

 

11 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Western leaders have lost the plot.  

Russia who you believe may initiate a nuclear strike hasn't lost the plot?

[jas007]

30 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

 

How is it in Russia's interest? 

 

Russia who you believe may initiate a nuclear strike hasn't lost the plot?

If they do, it will be in response to what they perceive to be an existential threat. That's their doctrine. They won't sit around  and wait to analyze what might be left of their nuclear capacity if they experience a "first strike."  That would be suicidal. 

 

On the other hand, we're now seeing chatter online suggesting that the US is perhaps considering transferring nuclear weapons to Ukraine.  I'm not sure who the genius is that suggested that, but I can't imagine anything more reckless,  Certainly, the transfer of such weapons to Ukraine won't insulate the US from the consequences.. We're also seeing reports of certain Navy officers openly suggesting that the West is "ready" for a nuclear exchange.   In short, the West is being reckless and irrational.  

 

Both sides need a time out.  

[transam]

Just now, jas007 said:

If they do, it will be in response to what they perceive to be an existential threat. That's their doctrine. They won't sit around  and wait to analyze what might be left of their nuclear capacity if they experience a "first strike."  That would be suicidal. 

 

On the other hand, we're now seeing chatter online suggesting that the US is perhaps considering transferring nuclear weapons to Ukraine.  I'm not sure who the genius is that suggested that, but I can't imagine anything more reckless,  Certainly, the transfer of such weapons to Ukraine won't insulate the US from the consequences.. We're also seeing reports of certain Navy officers openly suggesting that the West is "ready" for a nuclear exchange.   In short, the West is being reckless and irrational.  

 

Both sides need a time out.  

Ooooh, so it's all the West's fault now............😂

 

Not a bloke invading a sovereign nation thinking the West will do nothing.........😂

 

Not the West being ready for any possible eventuality brought on by a Tyrant........😂

 

Do you actually think the West is just sitting back doing nothing in preparation for what Putin may do next...?  😂

 

 

[jacob29]

9 minutes ago, jas007 said:

If they do, it will be in response to what they perceive to be an existential threat. That's their doctrine. They won't sit around  and wait to analyze what might be left of their nuclear capacity if they experience a "first strike."  That would be suicidal. 

Good thing Ukraine keeping their territory is not an existential threat to Russia, by any stretch of the imagination. So what are you worried about?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by Russia experiencing a first strike,

as none of the recent events even hint at that.

 

9 minutes ago, jas007 said:

On the other hand, we're now seeing chatter online suggesting that the US is perhaps considering transferring nuclear weapons to Ukraine.

You're seeing chatter, I've seen no such chatter, and I don't believe there's anything credible of that nature leaking. There has been chatter on Ukraine developing nuclear capability indigenously, and you can only blame western nations for that insofar as not providing enough assistance.

 

9 minutes ago, jas007 said:

In short, the West is being reckless and irrational.  

You can't seem to bring yourself to say Russia is being irrational. Why is that so hard? What if western nations went full mad dog like Russia, threatening nuclear strikes on capitals of Russia, NK and Iran. Would you consider that a more appropriate response?

[jas007]

16 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

You're seeing chatter, I've seen no such chatter, and I don't believe there's anything credible of that nature leaking. There has been chatter on Ukraine developing nuclear capability indigenously, and you can only blame western nations for that insofar as not providing enough assistance.

I guess you're not keeping up with your reading.  I'll post a link if I come across it again, but there's a recent article in the New York Times, citing an unnamed administration source, that the US is considering the transfer of nuclear weapons to Ukraine. IIn other words, the CIA planted the story in the hopes that it would get published.  The apparent purpose is to somehow deter Russia. 

[RayC]

On 11/25/2024 at 2:38 PM, 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.. 

 

 

 

We disagree completely on the fundamentals of this conflict. With the collapse of the Soviet Union (and the Warsaw Pact), the newly independent states became sovereign nations who were (should have been) free to choose their alliances. 

 

Whether Ukraine was corrupt - imo it was and what's left of it may still be - is immaterial. Internal Ukrainian politics should have remained a matter for Ukraine to deal with.

 

Ukraine was clearly looking towards the EU and NATO. No doubt, this met with the US's approval and, perhaps, the CIA lent a 'helping hand'. However, with or without US involvement, the direction of travel was clear: West not East. Also let's not pretend that Russia was standing idly by during this period, and letting events take their course; she was actively interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs.

 

Russia may have had some cause to try to protect the interests of Russian speakers in the Donbass, but that does extend to invading Ukrainian territory.

 

The idea that Russia was worried that NATO had plans to launch an invasion through Ukraine is imo frankly ridiculous.

 

Russia has a legitimate security concern in protecting its' borders but that does not extend to occupying the territory of adjacent sovereign nations. Russia's sphere of influence should be limited to its' own territory and that of the nations who, willingly, wish to align with her.

 

Imo this conflict isn't just about security. It is also about economics. A more Western (EU) orientated Ukraine poses a grave threat to the Russian economy.

[candide]

 

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

I guess you're not keeping up with your reading.  I'll post a link if I come across it again, but there's a recent article in the New York Times, citing an unnamed administration source, that the US is considering the transfer of nuclear weapons to Ukraine. IIn other words, the CIA planted the story in the hopes that it would get published.  The apparent purpose is to somehow deter Russia. 

The CIA or Russian operatives, who knows.

Edited 6 hours ago by candide

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

On the other hand, we're now seeing chatter online

If you consider the above to be a reliable source and basis for your post then that would explain how ridiculous the rest of your post is!

Edited 6 hours ago by scottiejohn

[jacob29]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

I guess you're not keeping up with your reading.  I'll post a link if I come across it again, but there's a recent article in the New York Times, citing an unnamed administration source, that the US is considering the transfer of nuclear weapons to Ukraine.

I found the article, and it's far from 'considering' doing that. The quote reads 'Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union'. In what universe, is a comment on what Biden could theoretically do, equivalent to the administration considering it?

 

Meanwhile Russian state TV announces these warnings in a direct manner. So I ask again, would you prefer a more direct approach, where state run media like RFA issued direct threats of nuclear strikes on Moscow? As you seem quite rattled by speculation by an official on what Biden could do..  while being ok with direct threats. You keep avoiding commentary on threats issued by Russia, can you at least acknowledge their destabilizing nature?

[jas007]

34 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

I found the article, and it's far from 'considering' doing that. The quote reads 'Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union'. In what universe, is a comment on what Biden could theoretically do, equivalent to the administration considering it?

 

Meanwhile Russian state TV announces these warnings in a direct manner. So I ask again, would you prefer a more direct approach, where state run media like RFA issued direct threats of nuclear strikes on Moscow? As you seem quite rattled by speculation by an official on what Biden could do..  while being ok with direct threats. You keep avoiding commentary on threats issued by Russia, can you at least acknowledge their destabilizing nature?

Let me be clear: all of the threats, by either side, are destabilizing.  What do threats accomplish?  I'm sure the world's people would like to live to see the holidays.  Threats by NATO, threats by The European Parliament, threats by the Biden Administration, threats by Russia.  It all needs to be toned down.  Nuclear was is not the answer.   I think people simply do not understand the consequences.  

 

Anyway, once it happens, once the war really begins, there will be no do-overs.  It will all be over in short order.  And the warmongers will have nowhere to hide.  

[jacob29]

38 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Let me be clear: all of the threats, by either side, are destabilizing.  What do threats accomplish?  I'm sure the world's people would like to live to see the holidays.  Threats by NATO, threats by The European Parliament, threats by the Biden Administration, threats by Russia.  It all needs to be toned down.  Nuclear was is not the answer.

That's not especially clear though, as Russia is at the end of your threat list.. yet they're the only ones issuing nuclear threats. You seem to be implying direct nuclear threats is a lesser form of escalation. Can you please clarify? Or was that in reverse order of the most irrational and reckless? If not, I would like to understand why you keep focusing on western responses, when they're clearly less threatening. Is it because western nations should know better, while Russia is a bit unhinged so we should give them a bit more latitude?

[TedG]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

Let me be clear: all of the threats, by either side, are destabilizing.  What do threats accomplish?  I'm sure the world's people would like to live to see the holidays.  Threats by NATO, threats by The European Parliament, threats by the Biden Administration, threats by Russia.  It all needs to be toned down.  Nuclear was is not the answer.   I think people simply do not understand the consequences.  

 

Anyway, once it happens, once the war really begins, there will be no do-overs.  It will all be over in short order.  And the warmongers will have nowhere to hide.  

 

Russia started this mess.  Maybe they leave Ukraine for the sake of peace.   But, the idiot Putin does not want to get egg on his face. 

[jas007]

1 hour ago, jacob29 said:

That's not especially clear though, as Russia is at the end of your threat list.. yet they're the only ones issuing nuclear threats. You seem to be implying direct nuclear threats is a lesser form of escalation. Can you please clarify? Or was that in reverse order of the most irrational and reckless? If not, I would like to understand why you keep focusing on western responses, when they're clearly less threatening. Is it because western nations should know better, while Russia is a bit unhinged so we should give them a bit more latitude?

For the purposes of discussion, let's assume that it's all Russia's fault. Everything is Russia's "fault." Their invasion of Ukraine was in no way justified, and their nuclear use directives are not helpful. Putin is an evil dictator intent on expanding Russia's border to align with the old Soviet border of 1989 and that any concern they may have in protecting their backyard is not justified,  NATO is just a nice peaceful alliance that wouldn't harm a fly. 

 

Let's further assume the Western nations are "right" in every respect.  The CIA, unlike  its usual modus operandi, is not on yet another nation building quest with the ultimate goal of plundering the target nation's resources after installing a puppet regime. 

 

Happy so far? 

 

So, it's all Russia's fault and the USA and its Western allies have clean hands. All they care about is Ukraine's "democracy,"  and Blackrock isn't already circling like a vulture, ready to steal Ukrainian resources. 

 

So what?  You still have a situation where both Russia and the USA have significant nuclear arsenals that, in any way shape or form, cannot be used without setting off a chain of events that could kill billions of people or perhaps end humanity.  

 

It doesn't matter who is making the threats or why.  No good can come of it.  The way you win is to not play the game. 

 

Part of the problem here is that the people running the USA, whoever they may be for the next 60 days, don't seem to understand that  a ground war with Russia cannot be won in 2024 or 2025.  They seem to think the military is fully ready to fight not only in Europe, but, if need be, in Asia against China, and in the Middle East against Iran.  Really?  They need a wake up call.  We have a scary situation right now.  The people at the Pentagon know the actual state of affairs, but no one seems to be listening to them. 

Edited 3 hours ago by jas007

[jacob29]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

For the purposes of discussion, let's assume that it's all Russia's fault.

No let's not. I don't  want an imagined hypothetical for the purposes of discussion. I want to know why you keep blaming the west first and foremost for escalation. Is that too much to ask?

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

Happy so far? 

Not happy, as it's deflection.

 

You believe Russia has legitimate reasons to fear for their sovereignty, and that their nuclear threats are credible. Ok. So how do you think smaller non nuclear neighbours are feeling right now? Do you think they feel secure knowing there's a loose cannon next door willing to nuke them into submission?

 

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

It doesn't matter who is making the threats or why.  No good can come of it.  The way you win is to not play the game. 

The source of escalation seems to matter a great deal to you, as you keep reminding us all its first and foremost the fault of the west. There are no blameless parties here, we agree on that. However the way you see direct nuclear threats from Russia as less of an escalation, makes your position not very credible. If you're genuinely concerned about nuclear escalation, surely you would have the biggest beef with Russia?

 

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

We have a scary situation right now. 

Ukraine has a scary situation. Does Ukraine have the right to defend its borders?