Russia vs. Ukraine Part 2

[DadSmith]

Ukraine war live updates: Zelenskyy slams 'beasts' in gruesome beheading video; Kremlin calls footage 'terrible'

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivered searing remarks in response to a video that appears to show the beheading of a captured Ukrainian serviceman.

www.cnbc.com

 

[asevans]

Most only see what the media wants them to see. Big bad Russia. Ready to invade.

America has invaded countless countries and kill thousands of civilians. Big bad Russia.

NATO is America. We fund the whole damn thing. We have military bases all over nato. Kind of like we have invaded nato counties.

USSR = NATO. Same thing

 

[Route 45]

I'm sure Putin really appreciates his useful idiots.

спасибо, товарищ

 

[Thor]

Most only see what the media wants them to see. Big bad Russia. Ready to invade.

America has invaded countless countries and kill thousands of civilians. Big bad Russia.

NATO is America. We fund the whole damn thing. We have military bases all over nato. Kind of like we have invaded nato counties.

USSR = NATO. Same thing

So, True Believer - Fellow Traveler - or Useful Idiot? USSR = NATO only works if you believe the enemy should prevail. If you don't believe they are our enemies you either have not seen their statements or support their domination.

 

[Thor]

This is easily disproven by the simple analogy that I gave you before: America obviously has no intentions of invading Mexico or Canada, but Russia signing a defensive treaty with them which involved sharing weapons and stationing troops in them would be a big problem for us, and certainly a source of provocation. So my only point is that even IF Russia had no intentions of invading the countries on their borders, they would still be mad about NATO expanding right up to their border.

Look, I'm not trying to take Russia's side here; it's a communist country ruled by an evil dictator, engaged in an unjustifiable invasion of a sovereign country. I certainly hope they get taken to the mat, and it'd be a bonus if Putin and his ilk get thrown out of power never to return.

The trouble I have is that I fear some people have narrowed their focus down so much onto how evil Russia is that they forget that NATO has its own fair share of faults. Most NATO member countries also seem to be heading pretty quickly in the direction of communism under a different name ("socialism" or whatever they want to call it) so things are just not as simple as "NATO good, Russia bad."

And while of course NATO hasn't come out and overtly threatened to invade Russia, they've certainly shown a willingness to meddle in other country's affairs in shady ways, including destabilizing existing governments in order to put in place a government more favorable to themselves. Many of us may very well see that as justified, but if you look at it objectively, think how it looks from the other side's perspective. Even going by the tone of many in this conversation, I have a feeling that if NATO gets comfortably established on Russia's border, things might go pretty quickly from "Oh, NATO has never threatened to do an evil thing like invade another country", to "NATO should invade Russia to free them from their evil communist overlords!"

The stationing of weapons is only required when a threat of invasion is relevant. Your supposition is invalid because Russia clearly plans to invade its neighbors...and has and will continue to do so unless stopped. I really don't care how it makes them feel that we will resist that.

And I ask you to point out which clause in the NATO compact supports invasion of another country? Defeating them if they invade is not the same thing.

 

[DadSmith]

Ukraine War: Zelensky Embezzled $400 Million Allocated By The US For Purchasing Fuel - Seymour Hersh

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky embezzled hundreds of millions of dollars that the US allocated for the purchase of fuel, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh. In his blog, Hersh writes – The Ukraine government, headed by Volodymyr Zelensky, has been using American...

eurasiantimes.com

Zelensky and team stole at least $400 million of US aid – Seymour Hersh - Daily Telegraph NZ

Corruption in Ukraine may be on par with what was seen in Afghanistan, the investigative journalist claimed.

dailytelegraph.co.nz

 

[1DOWN4UP]

President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address (1961)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Farewell address by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 17, 1961; Final TV Talk 1/17/61 (1), Box 38, Speech Series, Papers of Dwight D.

www.archives.gov

 

[AndreusMaximus]

The stationing of weapons is only required when a threat of invasion is relevant. Your supposition is invalid because Russia clearly plans to invade its neighbors...and has and will continue to do so unless stopped. I really don't care how it makes them feel that we will resist that.

And I ask you to point out which clause in the NATO compact supports invasion of another country? Defeating them if they invade is not the same thing.

I'm not sure if we're talking past each other here of if we really have a serious disagreement?

This whole conversation started because I saw someone make the statement that Russia shouldn't have any complaint about NATO expanding to their borders if they weren't planning on invading their neighbors.

I was pointing out that I believe that to be the reverse of the truth, that is, If Russia were not displaying an imminent threat of invading their neighbors, then I think Russia would have a legitimate gripe about it. Conversely, when Russia is displaying an imminent threat of invasion, that's when I would say they can't complain if their neighbors want to join NATO. It sounds like what you've stated in your first paragraph is in agreement with that idea.

Suppose the best case scenario happens and there is some sort of uprising or military coup in Russia, and Putin and his evil dictatorship are taken out of power, and the people of Russia set up a benign government that seeks to preserve the rights of the people and maintain peace with their neighbors. In this case, would you still say to the Russian people "Oh, if you really don't have any plans of invading your neighbors, you shouldn't have any complaints about NATO being on your borders."? That's the sort of attitude I would push back against. Unless Russia is planning on invading their neighbors, they have as much right as any other people to not have rival foreign powers putting troops and weapons on their doorstep.

And if you don't think it's possible for NATO to ever invade a country because it's not in their compact, well, I suggest you take a look at our own government and Constitution and see whether or not you think a written document will stop a corrupt power from doing evil.

 

[Thor]

I'm not sure if we're talking past each other here of if we really have a serious disagreement?

This whole conversation started because I saw someone make the statement that Russia shouldn't have any complaint about NATO expanding to their borders if they weren't planning on invading their neighbors.

I was pointing out that I believe that to be the reverse of the truth, that is, If Russia were not displaying an imminent threat of invading their neighbors, then I think Russia would have a legitimate gripe about it. Conversely, when Russia is displaying an imminent threat of invasion, that's when I would say they can't complain if their neighbors want to join NATO. It sounds like what you've stated in your first paragraph is in agreement with that idea.

Suppose the best case scenario happens and there is some sort of uprising or military coup in Russia, and Putin and his evil dictatorship are taken out of power, and the people of Russia set up a benign government that seeks to preserve the rights of the people and maintain peace with their neighbors. In this case, would you still say to the Russian people "Oh, if you really don't have any plans of invading your neighbors, you shouldn't have any complaints about NATO being on your borders."? That's the sort of attitude I would push back against. Unless Russia is planning on invading their neighbors, they have as much right as any other people to not have rival foreign powers putting troops and weapons on their doorstep.

And if you don't think it's possible for NATO to ever invade a country because it's not in their compact, well, I suggest you take a look at our own government and Constitution and see whether or not you think a written document will stop a corrupt power from doing evil.

A NATO country may invade another on their own dime, NATO as a whole would not be involved. There is nothing in the treaty that says any member (or all) need to support one members bad behavior. If that one member starts to lose their gambit it still does not involve the organization because it would not be an unprovoked attack. (see Turkey attacking Syria...no NATO involvement)

If you're threatened by a defensive pact on you border it's because you intended to attack those countries. Heck, if Russia changed its stripes it could become a member of NATO but I don't see that happening.

Now, if NATO somehow completely changed (becoming a government that ruled its member states) and started threatening to rule the world (like Russia and China do) then sure it could be seen as threatening but that's just not reality. NATO only threatens their desires of conquest.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

If you're threatened by a defensive pact on you border it's because you intended to attack those countries.

Wrong.

If ANY rival power of ours started stationing troops in and sharing weapons with countries on our border, we would absolutely feel threatened, whether or not they had a paper to wave around saying that it was only for defensive purposes and would never be used to launch a joint invasion. You can't seriously deny this.

 

[BugI02]

Most only see what the media wants them to see. Big bad Russia. Ready to invade.

America has invaded countless countries and kill thousands of civilians. Big bad Russia.

NATO is America. We fund the whole damn thing. We have military bases all over nato. Kind of like we have invaded nato counties.

USSR = NATO. Same thing

NATO dates to a time when it was seen, correctly, that preventing the hostile takeover of the member countries by the USSR would be better in terms of blood and treasure than trying to evict them after the takeover

That rationale is still largely correct, and perhaps Russia taking off the mask and being seen for the truly rapacious power that it is will help with the free-loader mentality of the European members of NATO

How does that go, when people show you who they really are you should believe them?

IMO, the Europeans better get up to speed fast because for at least 2 more years the US will be an unreliable partner because of the current leadership and institutional capture - longer actually, because it will take several years under effective, non-woke leadership to even make a good beginning to fixing the damage to our military

 

[Route 45]

FBI arrests 21-year-old Air National Guardsman suspected of leaking classified documents

FBI agents took Jack Teixeira into custody Thursday afternoon “without incident,” Attorney General Merrick Garland announced.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Super Bee]

FBI arrests 21-year-old Air National Guardsman suspected of leaking classified documents

FBI agents took Jack Teixeira into custody Thursday afternoon “without incident,” Attorney General Merrick Garland announced.

www.nbcnews.com

Silly kid. Dont you know you have to keep your classified information in the garage next to your Vette.

 

[Route 45]

 

[Thor]

Wrong.

If ANY rival power of ours started stationing troops in and sharing weapons with countries on our border, we would absolutely feel threatened, whether or not they had a paper to wave around saying that it was only for defensive purposes and would never be used to launch a joint invasion. You can't seriously deny this.

It does not seem that you understand the difference between offensive and defensive behavior. If we were declaring that we were going to conquer our neighbors they would be validated in setting up a defensive pact to deter our professed aggression. Trying to equate how Russians, the aggressor both professed and demonstrated, and Americans would view similar actions is....um...WRONG.

 

[BigRed]

Am I supposed to give a rat's *** if the Russian government is killing its own?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

It does not seem that you understand the difference between offensive and defensive behavior. If we were declaring that we were going to conquer our neighbors they would be validated in setting up a defensive pact to deter our professed aggression. Trying to equate how Russians, the aggressor both professed and demonstrated, and Americans would view similar actions is....um...WRONG.

So it is precisely because Russia is acting aggressively towards their neighbors that it is understandable that those countries would want to joint NATO, have NATO troops stationed in their borders, etc. Which is exactly what I've been saying, as in my previous post when I said: "If Russia were not displaying an imminent threat of invading their neighbors, then I think Russia would have a legitimate gripe about it. Conversely, when Russia is displaying an imminent threat of invasion, that's when I would say they can't complain if their neighbors want to join NATO."

Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, what you said above seems to be the exact opposite of when you said:

If you're threatened by a defensive pact on you border it's because you intended to attack those countries.

You have it backwards there. When you do have obvious intentions to invade another country, that's when it should not be seen as an aggressive move on that country's part if they want to form a treaty with your rival powers and invite their troops in, because they're clearly doing it as a defensive move against your planned aggression. But if you don't plan on invading your neighbors, that's when you have a legitimate gripe if they invite you enemies in to set up troops near your border, because if you're not showing any signs of invading them, they're clearly setting up those troops for more nefarious purposes.

 

[DadSmith]

Russia-Ukraine war live: new Russian law shows Moscow expects lengthy conflict, warns UK

UK Ministry of Defence says Kremlin has made it harder for civilians to avoid being drafted into the army

www.theguardian.com

 

[BigRed]

'A new era': Germany quits nuclear power, closing its final three plants | CNN

Germany's final three nuclear power plants close their doors on Saturday, marking the end of the country's nuclear era that has spanned more than six decades.

www.cnn.com

So when the ruskkies are cutting off the krauts from energy, we're supposed to bail out their ******* *****?

****'em

 

[Thor]

So it is precisely because Russia is acting aggressively towards their neighbors that it is understandable that those countries would want to joint NATO, have NATO troops stationed in their borders, etc. Which is exactly what I've been saying, as in my previous post when I said: "If Russia were not displaying an imminent threat of invading their neighbors, then I think Russia would have a legitimate gripe about it. Conversely, when Russia is displaying an imminent threat of invasion, that's when I would say they can't complain if their neighbors want to join NATO."

Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, what you said above seems to be the exact opposite of when you said:



You have it backwards there. When you do have obvious intentions to invade another country, that's when it should not be seen as an aggressive move on that country's part if they want to form a treaty with your rival powers and invite their troops in, because they're clearly doing it as a defensive move against your planned aggression. But if you don't plan on invading your neighbors, that's when you have a legitimate gripe if they invite you enemies in to set up troops near your border, because if you're not showing any signs of invading them, they're clearly setting up those troops for more nefarious purposes.

I think you just made my point for me...Russia is the both professed and active aggressor in attacking their neighbors and has been since before the USSR was a thing. They only feel threatened because they are planning on invading (again) the countries that are joining NATO.

Maybe we're just in violent agreement here but NATO is not a threat to Russia...unless Russia attacks a NATO member.