|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 29, 2022 14:09:44 GMT -6
Those posts show where there is support on the right for Putin's position he is "threatened." Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm...........................So you can't understand how Russia might find NATO missiles on their Western border threatening. I think Putin is a piece of shit, but get real NATO is in fact a threat to him. In fact NATO is designed to be a threat to the Eastern Block Powers, it's their sole purpose. No one is supporting Putin. Are you five years old ? A five year old might know more than you do about geography.
The U.S. has nuclear weapons in Europe, at air bases in NATO members Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. Which do you see as on the border of Russia? France and Britain have nuclear weapons.
It would take a 12 year old perhaps to know NATO is defined as a defense pact. There is nothing in the charter about offensive actions unless they are invaded or attacked.
It is true that the enemy which it was looking at when formed was the Soviet Union. You are old enough to remember a rather long
cold war won in part because Reagan put lots of weapons in Europe and the Soviet Union simply could not keep up. That was about 40 years ago and perhaps you could name any incident then or since then which showed NATO engaged in any offensive actions, anywhere. Except perhaps Iraq when fake news about WMD led to our taking action there, after a Russian ally invaded neighboring countries.
Nobody wants to repeat that, who I know of, so what again is Putin saying is the "threat."
In fact nobody comes out and actually says they support Putin. BUT, in the war of disinformation, I think my statement is quite fair.
Help me out here, You have not explained how the 3 articles
cited above do NOT show support for Putin's propaganda or were actual
votes potentially aiding Russia in its invasion. This is not just a war
on the ground but in the media and FOX does air Tucker and who has been
a conduit for Russian disinformation about the war. Perhaps that is the source of your opinion? You are echoing conservative talking points used just before his armed aggression. So it's old disinformation even, Trump was a different story, the bromance thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Apr 29, 2022 14:46:58 GMT -6
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm...........................So you can't understand how Russia might find NATO missiles on their Western border threatening. I think Putin is a piece of shit, but get real NATO is in fact a threat to him. In fact NATO is designed to be a threat to the Eastern Block Powers, it's their sole purpose. No one is supporting Putin. Are you five years old ? A five year old might know more than you do about geography.
The U.S. has nuclear weapons in Europe, at air bases in NATO members Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. Which do you see as on the border of Russia?
I am clearly talking about the potential of Ukraine joining NATO. I never said anything about NUCLEAR missiles. I am not even going to bother reading the rest of your post. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 29, 2022 15:40:57 GMT -6
A five year old might know more than you do about geography.
The U.S. has nuclear weapons in Europe, at air bases in NATO members Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. Which do you see as on the border of Russia?
I am clearly talking about the potential of Ukraine joining NATO. I never said anything about NUCLEAR missiles. I am not even going to bother reading the rest of your post. What kind of missiles does Putin fear so much?
Ukraine joining NATO which was not a threat effectively before this war would not mean that there would be more missiles anyway, the other NATO nations who were formerly Eastern Bloc countries have no more weapons now than they would if they had not joined NATO.
Putin simply put wants the option he is now exercising to invade bordering countries. On the pretext he chooses.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Apr 29, 2022 21:03:25 GMT -6
It is true that the enemy which it was looking at when formed was the Soviet Union. You are old enough to remember a rather long
cold war won in part because Reagan put lots of weapons in Europe and the Soviet Union simply could not keep up. That was about 40 years ago and perhaps you could name any incident then or since then which showed NATO engaged in any offensive actions, anywhere. Except perhaps Iraq when fake news about WMD led to our taking action there, after a Russian ally invaded neighboring countries.
Wow, always amazes me what a simple comment can inspire. I just thought with Putin and his media mouthpieces talking more and more about using nuclear weapons; it's becoming a bit disturbing. Seems to me, it becomes easier to accept the use of something the more it is talked about publicly. www.yahoo.com/news/russian-tv-european-countries-threatened-143016651.htmlAgree it's mainly for Putin's domestic audience, but the longer this conflict goes, the more damage control he will need to do to justify it. The oil sanctions aren't biting much. Russia is selling less oil, but at higher prices resulting in the net revenue being about the same or even greater. Lack of consumer goods and general economic destruction at home will be Putin's greatest challenge. I did want to point-out NATO's forces were used in Afghanistan for nearly 20 years. www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htmI think that qualifies as an offensive action. Invading a country to remove from power the Taliban. To put in a power a friendly government and then keeping it in power by use of NATO troops. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 29, 2022 22:31:28 GMT -6
It is true that the enemy which it was looking at when formed was the Soviet Union. You are old enough to remember a rather long
cold war won in part because Reagan put lots of weapons in Europe and the Soviet Union simply could not keep up. That was about 40 years ago and perhaps you could name any incident then or since then which showed NATO engaged in any offensive actions, anywhere. Except perhaps Iraq when fake news about WMD led to our taking action there, after a Russian ally invaded neighboring countries.
Wow, always amazes me what a simple comment can inspire. I just thought with Putin and his media mouthpieces talking more and more about using nuclear weapons; it's becoming a bit disturbing. Seems to me, it becomes easier to accept the use of something the more it is talked about publicly. www.yahoo.com/news/russian-tv-european-countries-threatened-143016651.htmlAgree it's mainly for Putin's domestic audience, but the longer this conflict goes, the more damage control he will need to do to justify it. The oil sanctions aren't biting much. Russia is selling less oil, but at higher prices resulting in the net revenue being about the same or even greater. Lack of consumer goods and general economic destruction at home will be Putin's greatest challenge. I did want to point-out NATO's forces were used in Afghanistan for nearly 20 years. www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htmI think that qualifies as an offensive action. Invading a country to remove from power the Taliban. To put in a power a friendly government and then keeping it in power by use of NATO troops. Your article points out that it was UN organized use of NATO force as defensive action against the Taliban (who were a long time Soviet enemy to boot) and was to defend NATO and other nations from terrorist threats. So I disagree it was in fact NATO "offensive action." Not to mention that the terrorist threat was real, not made up BS about NAZI abuse of Russian speaking peoples in the Dombas. Also not in any way related to the Russian historical empire either or the idea that NATO was focused only on Russia.
I tend to agree with you that the Russian threats are to some degree concerning, more about the fake news problem in it than anything. I hate to think any government can be in power where a single individual has too much control, is unopposed, can isolate himself, ignore his own government intelligence and military, and potentially start to make decisions on belief in his own propaganda.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Apr 30, 2022 13:06:24 GMT -6
If you use that "defensive" argument, than inserting NATO troops into Ukraine anytime after the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea and the Dombas would be defensive. They would be defending against Russian advances into NATO states such as Poland and Hungary after Ukraine fell. In addition to Putin making a "bad" call on using nukes, I worry about how much local control a Russian General might have on the use of a tactical nuke. A Russian General who isn't winning and about to be sacked by Putin might be inclined to win at all costs. In the 1960's, the US Army had a tactical nuclear weapon referred to as the Davy Crockett. armyhistory.org/the-m28m29-davy-crockett-nuclear-weapon-system/It was withdrawn from active combat units in the early 1970's. The fear was some sergeant, whose troops were about to be overrun, might fire one off starting a full fledged nuclear war. Could a Russian General today make such a decision in Ukraine? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 30, 2022 14:04:28 GMT -6
We don't need troops in Ukraine. The Russians have made Ukraine stronger. Any peace deal will involve bilateral deals to insure it. And stronger arms, plus commitment from Europe to continue sanctions, reduce energy imports.
|
|
