Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Underestimating Russia is always a bad idea.
Russian military technology can often be hit or miss in terms of quality, but their missile tech is a decade ahead of the U.S., and their hyper-sonic missiles are basically unstoppable:
At least not in the quantities required for so many European countries, and such industrial country as Germany in particular. ( Remember, unlike the UK with its prevalent "service" sector, Germany actually still has major industrial sector.)
Besides, China always pays higher prices for gas (LNG including.)
That's where it went lately from the US, instead of Europe as destination, while they are having energy crisis over there.
Like what?
Everyone in the West know that this all stinks of Russian meddling, Russia’s Gazprom has failed to book additional gas transit capacity via Ukraine to European destinations and has led some to accuse the Kremlin of manipulating gas prices in order to benefit Russia and to put pressure on the West to progress with Nordstream 2, despite US pressure.
Furthermore Russia is now trying to manipulate the refugee situation in Belarus, and cause unnecessary tensions on the border of Ukraine.
As for Syria nobody interfered more in Syria than Russia itself, whilst western military involvement was far more limited.
In terms of Liz Truss, she might have taken a tank ride whilst visiting forces in Estonia, however it's bit rich for Russians to be critical given Putin's shirtless exploits and string man image,
Russia also continues to interfere in elections, launch cyber attacks against the west and even assassinate and poison people in western cities.
There is now a real risk of a new cold war, and it is Russia and it's economy that will pay the ultimate price and not the west, as total economic sanctions and an exclusion of Russia from the international stage will be the end result.
As for the Russian economy and manufacturing sector it's fairly dismal, and without fossil fuels is set to become a lot worse.
I know, I know. Lets Un Constitutionally send troops and money over there even though it has nothing to do with protecting our borders. Then, the ones who do make it back, lets continue to not care one iota about their lives by denying them the proper care they need.
What Russia did in Ukraine is the answer to treachery deeds of the USA. The West promised to Gorbatchev that NATO won't move to the Russian borders. Now Russia is surrounded with NATO bases. But the US decided it is not enough and organized the coup in Ukraine. Moreover, they created Ukraine as the anti-Russia state right under Russia belly. The west didn't leave Russia any other choice to act accordingly.
Regarding the bolded: "The West promised to Gorbatchev that NATO won't move to the Russian borders"
Do you have a link?
Is it part of a formal treaty? Who actually announced it?
You are claiming 'treachery' in order to justify one sovereign nation attacking another ... with death and destruction in it's wake, pretty serious ... you are going to have to support this claim.
4. Allow The Ukraine to use NATO air bases to avoid being destroyed on the ground
5. Supply The Ukraine with several million mines
We don't need to send ANY troops to them- they have plenty of troops. Too bad we could have sent them all the Blackhawk helicopters Biden left for the Taliban.
Whatever happens, you can expect Biden to do the wrong thing and something stupid. If Trump was in office, there is no way in hell the Russians would try this. They know Biden is weak and demented and are going to press their advantage, as will China.
I don't think the Ukraine should be a member of NATO, at least not yet. Action in that direction would justify a Russian invasion, at least in the mind of Putin and the hard liners. What you probably want to do is supply enough modern arms to the Ukraine to make an invasion very expensive and potentially last for several years. That may require delivering good anti-aircraft systems. I'm skeptical about using mines; the shared frontier is just too long and they would need to be cleared later. As for nukes, the Ukraine people have enough technical knowledge to build their own. They may already be working on them.
Yes, but Ukraine doing it by the order of the US.
...
This is completely absurd. You are spreading conspiracy theories.
Ukraine does not want war with Russia, and the USA does not want conflicts there or anywhere.
The facts are clear:
Russia has been clandestinely active for a decade trying to break up NATO and the European Union. NATO is a potential barrier to Russian expansion plans.
Russia has been backing up and supplying the 'rebels' in eastern Ukraine for years, many of whom are actually Russian military veteran 'volunteers' born and raised in Russia. Russia is the aggressor here, the USA does not want nor need this trouble and certainly would not instigate it.
Russia is the aggressor here, and you are engaging in a disinformation campaign.
Everyone in the West know that this all stinks of Russian meddling, Russia’s Gazprom has failed to book additional gas transit capacity via Ukraine to European destinations and has led some to accuse the Kremlin of manipulating gas prices in order to benefit Russia and to put pressure on the West to progress with Nordstream 2, despite US pressure.
Huh?
Why should Russia subsidize the budget of the country that is openly hostile to Russia, which prohibits the usage of Russian language to its native speakers or downright kills them? Why should it give the transit fees to such country?
Would you?
Quote:
Furthermore Russia is now trying to manipulate the refugee situation in Belarus, and cause unnecessary tensions on the border of Ukraine.
Nah, it's not just "Russia manipulates" - it's Lukashenko himself too, happy with revenge for the latest EU attempt to unseat him.)))
Quote:
As for Syria nobody interfered more in Syria than Russia itself, whilst western military involvement was far more limited.
Nah again, Russia has been in Syria from Soviet times, and everything was quiet there, until someone somewhere decided to use that country to undermine Russian financial interests in Europe, namely - Germany.
Quote:
In terms of Liz Truss, she might have taken a tank ride whilst visiting forces in Estonia, however it's bit rich for Russians to be critical given Putin's shirtless exploits and string man image,
She is a diplomat, is she not?
Since when the diplomats are riding in tanks?
Quote:
Russia also continues to interfere in elections, launch cyber attacks against the west and even assassinate and poison people in western cities.
I have a lot of questions on this front.
And I mean A LOT.
Quote:
There is now a real risk of a new cold war, and it is Russia and it's economy that will pay the ultimate price and not the west, as total economic sanctions and an exclusion of Russia from the international stage will be the end result.
Hello BNW, the "cold war" is already here (I just came back from Moscow and the US embassy is practically shut down over there.)
It's the potential "hot phase" of the "cold war" that concerns me.
As for the economic sanctions against Russia - it already brought Russia into close union with China as the result of it.
This is completely absurd. You are spreading conspiracy theories.
Ukraine does not want war with Russia, and the USA does not want conflicts there or anywhere.
The facts are clear:
Russia has been clandestinely active for a decade trying to break up NATO and the European Union. NATO is a potential barrier to Russian expansion plans.
Russia has been backing up and supplying the 'rebels' in eastern Ukraine for years, many of whom are actually Russian military veteran 'volunteers' born and raised in Russia. Russia is the aggressor here, the USA does not want nor need this trouble and certainly would not instigate it.
Russia is the aggressor here, and you are engaging in a disinformation campaign.
Apparently you are the only person that's unaware that Ukrainian regime installed after the coup d'etat is an American puppet regime.
You are probably not aware as well that US spent $5 billion for the change of the regime over there?
I wouldn't believe anything WaPo puts out there. It's a mouthpiece of the Biden administration. They don't obtain any news, the receive the material and instructions directly from the US government.
Regarding the bolded: "The West promised to Gorbatchev that NATO won't move to the Russian borders"
Do you have a link?
Is it part of a formal treaty? Who actually announced it?
You are claiming 'treachery' in order to justify one sovereign nation attacking another ... with death and destruction in it's wake, pretty serious ... you are going to have to support this claim.
"In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
