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.
Not that it's important. Even if no assurances were made, expending NATO to Russia's borders is an escalatory move.
NATO is a mutual defense organization. Countries apply to join. Often, the earlier members are reluctant to admit new member nations. It's the new members that want to get in so badly, who can blame them?
NATO doesn't force countries to join, and any NATO member state can withdraw freely .... they aren't colonies and they aren't being exploited. NATO takes nothing from Russia. The only thing expanding NATO does to Russia is limit Russia's opportunities to attack and start a war. That's not escalating anything, it's de-escalating.
It's pretty obvious why countries bordering Russia want to be in NATO.
From the reporting I am seeing this was a detonation not a truck bomb. How much money does Russia spend on that bridge's security??
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBoy64
...
Bottom line is the bridge blew up.
UP, I think is a key word here.
I looked at the video and some still shots several times, and interesting to me is that the double-span looks like it slipped off the support. Looking at the asphalt, it doesn't actually look like the pavement is burnt or broken. It is just pushed toward the sea and folded over where it came to rest.
[Further, there is a video claim that the truck in the video actually made it across and has been shown on Russian TV with the driver being questioned ... bizarre. I was astonished to see that claim, because it looked to me like that truck and the car next to it was blown all to hell.]
I think the charge went off under the bridge. It lifted the roadbed.
If so, how the hell would that much explosive get positioned anywhere under that particular bridge? It was either a very sophisticated smuggling (and bridge security avoidance) of a Ukrainian manned boat away from the channel ... or, just maybe: a Russian false flag, possibly to justify something quite horrendous to come.
They can simply begin to target Ukraine's energy infrastructure. Something so simple, yet something they haven't really done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanSunset
Why would it trigger NATO's article 5 exactly? Ukraine is not part of NATO.
Also, by go after Ukraine's energy infrastructure, I mean fire ballistic missiles with high-tonnage munitions at all key factories, service stations, transport stations, generation and transmission stations. Basically, make it lights out over Kiev, and do this for the winter.
More than half of Ukraine’s power generation is via nuclear. NATO has made it clear that if radiation from the destruction of a nuclear power plant goes over Poland or Hungary or such, they consider it to be a hostile act from Russia and therefore an Article 5 situation.
Between that and the odds of fallout going over Russia or Belarus, even the Russians are self-aware enough not to mess with the nuclear plants proper.
And from there, they need to keep the lights on in areas where they’re currently occupying.
However, in their military manuals only very few States maintain the rule
without reservation that their combatants must wear a uniform and, if such a
rule is stated, it applies only to members of regular armed forces. Many
States add qualifying adjectives to the general rule that soldiers of regular
armed forces must wear uniform
It goes on to outline the distinction between acts of espionage during war. Bottom line, someone doing something while not wearing a uniform during a war doesn't magically make it fall under the definition of terrorism.
More than half of Ukraine’s power generation is via nuclear. NATO has made it clear that if radiation from the destruction of a nuclear power plant goes over Poland or Hungary or such, they consider it to be a hostile act from Russia and therefore an Article 5 situation.
This also illustrates that Ukraine, will not possessing nuclear weapons, does have nuclear material. In response to a tac nuke, Ukraine could theoretically smuggle in and set off dirty bombs in Moscow.
This also illustrates that Ukraine, will not possessing nuclear weapons, does have nuclear material. In response to a tac nuke, Ukraine could theoretically smuggle in and set off dirty bombs in Moscow.
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.
