NATO and Maga

[frank83628]

1 hour ago, candide said:

There were killings on both sides.

 

NATO did not encroach any Russian border

They expanded Est to about 14-16 countries since 1997, the agreement was they wouldn't

[candide]

16 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

They expanded Est to about 14-16 countries since 1997, the agreement was they wouldn't

There was no formal agreement, and the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991.

[frank83628]

1 hour ago, candide said:

There was no formal agreement, and the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991.

So the US proved it was untrustworthy, why should Putin trust anything America says since then? Remember how you lot cried your eyes out and had an international hussy fit when Russia was going to put missiles in Cuba?

Your double standards are on full show for all to see

[candide]

25 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

So the US proved it was untrustworthy, why should Putin trust anything America says since then? Remember how you lot cried your eyes out and had an international hussy fit when Russia was going to put missiles in Cuba?

Your double standards are on full show for all to see

False equivalence. As I posted before, U.S. missiles stayed where they already were at the end ofcthe cold war. They have not been moved closer to the Russian border.

[SunnyinBangrak]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

False equivalence. As I posted before, U.S. missiles stayed where they already were at the end ofcthe cold war. They have not been moved closer to the Russian border.

So the ATACMS were in Ukraine since the cold war? As usual, its nonsense😅 

[TedG]

49 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

So the US proved it was untrustworthy, why should Putin trust anything America says since then? Remember how you lot cried your eyes out and had an international hussy fit when Russia was going to put missiles in Cuba?

Your double standards are on full show for all to see

We don’t need misslses close to Russia.  We have ICBMs.  

[TedG]

2 hours ago, frank83628 said:

They expanded Est to about 14-16 countries since 1997, the agreement was they wouldn't

What agreement?  

[frank83628]

17 minutes ago, candide said:

False equivalence. As I posted before, U.S. missiles stayed where they already were at the end ofcthe cold war. They have not been moved closer to the Russian border.

No, not on paper, NATO is basically the USA, everyone knows that, the EU now running around like headless chickens now proves that. If America wanted a wage a war the NATO puppets would have to join. so the US missiles are in Eurpoe, hidden in plain sight. So its not a false equivalence at all, its fact.

[frank83628]

3 minutes ago, TedG said:

What agreement?  

The verbal agreement that Russia was very foolish to have trusted the USA on.

[TedG]

2 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

The verbal agreement that Russia was very foolish to have trusted the USA on.

Who made this agreement? 

[TedG]

4 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

No, not on paper, NATO is basically the USA, everyone knows that, the EU now running around like headless chickens now proves that. If America wanted a wage a war the NATO puppets would have to join. so the US missiles are in Eurpoe, hidden in plain sight. So its not a false equivalence at all, its fact.

I wish the US would wage war on the Russia army in Ukaine.  

[Yellowtail]

 

[still kicking]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

And?

[TedG]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Texas has a larger GDP than Russia. 

[TedG]

21 minutes ago, TedG said:

Who made this agreement? 

Did Russia sign an agree to respect the boarders of Ukraine?  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian–Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty

[candide]

34 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

So the ATACMS were in Ukraine since the cold war? As usual, its nonsense😅 

Nonsense! They were sent there after the Russian invasion!, not before. So  ot a cause of the invasion.

 

[NoDisplayName]

On 2/16/2025 at 5:08 PM, bubblegum said:

Now there is a lot of talk about Nato's article 5 where if 1 member is attacked all allies will retaliate.

 

I don't think it actually says that.

 

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

 

The other parties will "assist" in the manner that suits them.

 

Lots of wiggle room there.  Strongly-worded letters count.

 

Don't expect Uncle Sam to have your back unless it's in his national interest.

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, TedG said:

Texas has a larger GDP than Russia. 

And Kansas has a bigger GDP than Ukraine

[candide]

18 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

No, not on paper, NATO is basically the USA, everyone knows that, the EU now running around like headless chickens now proves that. If America wanted a wage a war the NATO puppets would have to join. so the US missiles are in Eurpoe, hidden in plain sight. So its not a false equivalence at all, its fact.

Complete false equivalence. U.S. missiles were not moved closer to the border before the invasion . And there was no ambiguity about the target of the U.S policy: China  not Russia.

 

On top of it, ICBMs don't need to be close to the border

 I  particular as nuclear submarines are already hidden close to their targets. It's the same for both the U.S. and Russia. There are also Russian submarines close to the U.S., ready to nuke the U.S.

[frank83628]

9 hours ago, candide said:

Complete false equivalence. U.S. missiles were not moved closer to the border before the invasion . And there was no ambiguity about the target of the U.S policy: China  not Russia.

 

On top of it, ICBMs don't need to be close to the border

 I  particular as nuclear submarines are already hidden close to their targets. It's the same for both the U.S. and Russia. There are also Russian submarines close to the U.S., ready to nuke the U.S.

Not false, you just deny everything that doesn't fit your senior citizen, brainwashed mindset.

[MicroB]

On 2/16/2025 at 8:28 PM, beautifulthailand99 said:

and what's wrong with "raving" homosexualists ?

 

Russians don't like them. And it often turns out the most homophobic are in fact homosexuals themselves.

 

[MicroB]

9 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

And Kansas has a bigger GDP than Ukraine

 

If Texas was to attack California, who would win? Interesting concept, given both states are home to significant military assets.

[MicroB]

14 hours ago, uncletiger said:

NATO a dying and nearly dead organization that serves no useful purpose other than to funnel money to America's enemy, the Globalist Criminal Syndicate. NATO will be ending soon. Thankfully. A quick look at who pays for NATO tells you all you need to know. America is done funding an organization whose main goal is to destroy American values and replace it with a one world, tyrannical government. If the EU wants to continue its money laundering and experiments in European socialism, then it can pay for it.  Because America is done with this. Russia is a better ally than the European globalists at present.

 

 

https://media.scored.co/post/M6KRRSpcCfx8.jpeg

 

You're one of that sort. We all know what you mean by  "Globalist Criminal Syndicate". Its code. Lots of words disguise it. Your lot lost in 1945. You don't get a second bite. 

[MicroB]

16 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Very true. And sadly he will probably walk away with a chunk of Ukraine and guarantees that Ukraine won't join NATO.  But however unpalatable that outcome is, the alternative is worse. 

 

If you want to actually try and expel Russia from all of Ukraine, then you need to involve NATO ground and air forces. Which means WW3.  How many thousands of British and American and Polish and German lives are you willling to throw onto the fire?

 

 

How did the Afghans expel the Russians? It wasn't because of losses; the Soviet army could easily sustain the losses incurred. Domestic pressure and economic collapse.

 

The reason Russia is occupying Donetsk right now is because they think its worth it, the benefits outweight the drawbacks. Postwar, their economy will be in the crapper. Whatever victory in occupied Ukraine will be pyrrhic. All the towns are trashed. Ukrainian towns are trashed as well. Buut Ukraine will no doubt see inward investment, through aide, reparations from Russian overseas reserves, even capitalist investment. Russian though still is governing a rump formerly Ukrainian population living in basically filth. Sanctions might ease a little for Russia (though not on individuals). But that will be moot. Russian occupation of these territories will never be recognised, no more than the Turkish occupation of North Cyprus has been. The cost to Russia in rebuilding will be enormous. On top of that, you will not see Western companies bidding for projects to rebuild the airport, the apartment blocks, the road system etc. Sure, the work might go to Chinese outfits with shonky building, charged at a premium.

 

Before the war, most of the troops in the Russian army came from the far flung parts of the Federation, not so much from around St Petersburg and Moscow. Russian Youtuber "Vasya in the Hay" has done a superb job, over many years, exposing the appalling conditions Russian people in the non-metropolitan areas. Those soldiers going home, at the end of their contract, might well want to see something for all their sacrifice; the mobilisation policy was not unlike the British WW1 policy, almost Pals Battalions, with men from the same town, village being called up. And half of them dead or returning maimed.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see a "Home Fit for Heroes" type of movement. The Russians left Afghanistan partly as a result of pressure from the Mums. The Soviets were sensititive to public opinion. Putin, if anything, is even more conscious of the need to have people backing him, hence the amounts spent of propaganda, rock concerts and nighly speeches.

 

But with the Russian treasury brassic, he has tough choices; pay off the returning constripts with free Ladas and Fridges, or rehome ex-Ukrainians. He was able to fund the rebuilding of Grozny through windfalls, that won't happen again, but also because the Chechens threatened to do one if he didn't (which illustrates what a weak man he is).

 

The cost for Russia is retaining these territories could be either how many troops its willing to sacrifice (which is a lot, because Moscow literally doesn't care for an army made up of convicts and Asiatics), or a cost that might affect the stability of the regime.

 

I won't forget how in 1991 Russian people stood up to the CPSU Coup Plotters, and faced down tanks. They did it before. Can do it again.