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.
You apparently don’t understand what NATO membership actually means.
NATO was created as a military alliance to confront the Soviet Union. NATO members are expected to meet certain military capability requirements, and may be required to host NATO military defense installations (read: nuclear weapons and anti-ballistic missile systems)
This is obviously a threat to the Russians, much like the United States considered Soviet missile systems situated in Cuba which resulted in the Cuban missile crisis.
Now, take Cuba, and multiply that by a dozen, and that’s what NATO is doing all along the Russian border.
Surely you can’t be so hypocritical as to think it’s ok to surround Russia with offensive weapons, and they dare not fuss about it?
Yawn. This has been discussed a trillion times, but since you need a visual, here you go. There are already NATO countries bordering Russia and thanks to Putin this (hi Finland) will increase. So it's okay for the ex-soviets countries of Est, Lat and Lith to join without an invasion, but somehow it's not okay for Ukraine?
Yawn. This has been discussed a trillion times, but since you need a visual, here you go. There are already NATO countries bordering Russia and thanks to Putin this (hi Finland) will increase. So it's okay for the ex-soviets countries of Est, Lat and Lith to join without an invasion, but somehow it's not okay for Ukraine?
Russia has repeatedly made it clear that Ukraine must not join NATO. Whether we who are in the U.S. like it or not (or understand it or not), Ukraine is part of Russia's geostrategic sphere and Russia will not tolerate Ukraine in NATO.
Of all people, Barack Obama is on the record stating that Ukraine is a "core interest" for Russia in a way that it is not for the United States - and Obama, however much I dislike much of what he did, was correct on this. This is why for example Cuba housing Soviet missiles was a major problem for the U.S. in the early 1960s. Should Ukraine ultimately join NATO and house nuclear-armed missiles pointing at Russia, Russia will not tolerate this.
Russia has repeatedly made it clear that Ukraine must not join NATO. Whether we who are in the U.S. like it or not (or understand it or not), Ukraine is part of Russia's geostrategic sphere and Russia will not tolerate Ukraine in NATO.
Of all people, Barack Obama is on the record stating that Ukraine is a "core interest" for Russia in a way that it is not for the United States - and Obama, however much I dislike much of what he did, was correct on this. This is why for example Cuba housing Soviet missiles was a major problem for the U.S. in the early 1960s. Should Ukraine ultimately join NATO and house nuclear-armed missiles pointing at Russia, Russia will not tolerate this.
Ukraine is an independent country, Russia has no business deciding for Ukraine what they can and can not do.
Ukraine is an independent country, Russia has no business deciding for Ukraine what they can and can not do.
Yet again, a very simplistic view of the matter.
Ukraine allowed its fighters to shell its OWN territory with the purpose of striking Donbass Russians. 14,000 ethnic Russians living within Ukraine died since 2014.
Does your claim that a country which is independent is to be permitted to deliberately target some of its own citizens for death because they are of another ethnicity?
By analogy, if there was a large contingent of Americans and descendants of Americans living in a small pocket of Mexico and the Mexican army did this to them - and despite repeated requests from Washington, D.C., Mexico continued this slaughter - would it be acceptable for Mexico to persist in this wave of violence because Mexico is an independent country and it can do whatever it wants?
Ukraine being independent here is also a flawed claim. If Ukraine were truly independent, Zelensky would have the authority to tell his western backers to stop this war. He cannot because he's in their hands; given all the money and weaponry he's been given, he has no choice but to keep the fighting going. In other words, the west is going to use his people/country to wear down Russia - a fight to the last Ukrainian.
Not being able to run your own country's affairs even if you're the president? Doesn't seem like "independence" to me. But oh well. Whether Zelensky is a puppet or a truly autonomous chief executive, Russia will win this war.
I read that Ukraine's missile defense system shot down 50% of the payload, that leaves 50% that hit their targets.
No it doesn't mean that. A missile can miss it's target without having been shot down. I've seen pics of craters in the middle of roads and in playgrounds. I doubt that these places were their intended targets.
Ukraine allowed its fighters to shell its OWN territory with the purpose of striking Donbass Russians. 14,000 ethnic Russians living within Ukraine died since 2014.
Does your claim that a country which is independent is to be permitted to deliberately target some of its own citizens for death because they are of another ethnicity?
By analogy, if there was a large contingent of Americans and descendants of Americans living in a small pocket of Mexico and the Mexican army did this to them - and despite repeated requests from Washington, D.C., Mexico continued this slaughter - would it be acceptable for Mexico to persist in this wave of violence because Mexico is an independent country and it can do whatever it wants?
Ukraine being independent here is also a flawed claim. If Ukraine were truly independent, Zelensky would have the authority to tell his western backers to stop this war. He cannot because he's in their hands; given all the money and weaponry he's been given, he has no choice but to keep the fighting going. In other words, the west is going to use his people/country to wear down Russia - a fight to the last Ukrainian.
Not being able to run your own country's affairs even if you're the president? Doesn't seem like "independence" to me. But oh well. Whether Zelensky is a puppet or a truly autonomous chief executive, Russia will win this war.
Your spin on every aspect of the conflict is interesting.
-Ukraine just shelling and attacking Donbass, no mention as to a Russian supported civil war...nope, just Ukraine shelling Donbass apparently just to kill Russians.
-It's Ukraine\the wests fault for the war, no mention of Russia invading...spin as if Russia is the victim in all this.
-No mention of the grab of the Crimea.
-I've also enjoyed all the threats of nuclear war and how that too is everybody elses fault for not just surrendering and thus creating a threat of nuclear war.
I'll be sure to tip my server after this comedy routine...if the Whitehouse needs a new press secretary you should apply.
Yawn. This has been discussed a trillion times, but since you need a visual, here you go. There are already NATO countries bordering Russia and thanks to Putin this (hi Finland) will increase. So it's okay for the ex-soviets countries of Est, Lat and Lith to join without an invasion, but somehow it's not okay for Ukraine?
This is nothing new, I suggest you read about the Monroe Doctrine.
Quote:
We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.
Russia views NATO extending its system of influence to Ukraine as a 'red line' as it did with Georgia.
No it doesn't mean that. A missile can miss it's target without having been shot down. I've seen pics of craters in the middle of roads and in playgrounds. I doubt that these places were their intended targets.
Ok, I guess that's always a possibility. What I meant to say is that using missiles to target civilian infrastructure is just as difficult (same odds of being shot down) as using them to target military infrastructure since air defense systems don't know their intended destination when they go to intercept.
No it doesn't mean that. A missile can miss it's target without having been shot down. I've seen pics of craters in the middle of roads and in playgrounds. I doubt that these places were their intended targets.
I've seen photos of bomb craters in fields.
Also, lots of photos of bombed out apartments, schools, hospitals, ... Hard to imagine why they are wasting ammunition on non-military targets.
My guess is that they point in the general direction and hope for the best.
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.
