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.
Ukraine blew it. They should have insisted on a treaty to give up the nukes. Their screw-up shouldn't be my problem.
An independent Ukraine was an known Unknown.
Nobody in the international community thought it a good idea to allow them be the 3rd largest nuclear power overnight.
Sure, they could have tried to insist on rock solid, legal security guaranty, but who in their right might would provide it?
Russia already invaded, so maybe if Ukraine joins NATO, Russia will back off since that would mean every other NATO country has to fight Russia? Ukraine is a very corrupt country and I'm sure that's why they were not allowed to join NATO in years past.
Hahaha … Ukraine’s corruption was never a disqualifying issue, it’s a prerequisite LOL. The reason Ukraine hasn’t already been anointed NATO membership is simple … as a member, it could not have served its current role as a US proxi to fight Russians, without immediately triggering WW III.
Now, let’s put one myth to bed here …. this myth about how powerful NATO actually is at the present time. NATO is effectively impotent. NATO is fractured, and its military capability is virtually in a state of erectile dysfunction, to which there is no viagra solution available to assist it in “rising to the occasion” of actual combat with the Russian military, which contrary to the fake news, is stronger now than it has been since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
The United States has carried NATO on its back for decades, and is nothing more than a crumbling alliance whose members can’t agree on much of anything, other than their universal lack of desire to get involved in a hot war with Russia … they are in substantial agreement on that point, excepting the maniacs in Poland who seem to share a death wish with certain members of the NATO command structure. And the US is in no state of preparedness to fight for Ukraine either, unless you think sending overweight, woke transgenders dressed in rainbow camouflage has any chance of defeating hardened, combat experienced Russians in their own backyard?
Turn off the television or at least switch the channels and stop listening to nonsense spewed on CNN and MSNBC. They are profusely lying about how “weak” Russia is. The various NATO members have slowed or halted their military support of Ukraine because they have exhausted their resources. They have nothing left to gift Ukraine, and we don’t either, except for the apparent endless supply of paper and ink at the US treasury.
The USSR lost the Cold War, no point crying about the spoils going to the victor.
Why wouldn’t NATO/the “West” expand its influence (through treaties not agression) after victory?
Because it’s not about treaties …. it’s a MILITARY ORGANIZATION … not a diplomatic organization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_N
Why does Russia have to use force and subversion to expand its influence?
It doesn’t, and by comparative measures to the United States, it hasn’t for the past 30+ years.
The United States is the largest, by far, supplier of military hardware and weaponry on planet earth to regimes across the globe. We are the facilitators of more acts of aggression globally than the next dozen countries combined. Not Russia.
If you would like to gain a better understanding of how the world actually works, try reading the book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”, and don’t forget to buckle your seatbelt.
Western “influence” isn’t spread by diplomacy and treaties. It’s spread by bribes and bombs. Bribes go to those corrupt enough to sell out their own countries, and those with greater integrity first get the subversion tactics, and if that fails, they receive the bomb treatment, disguised as freeing the people from the clutches of a dictator, and gifting them with DEMOCRACY.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 02-26-2024 at 12:59 PM..
This year’s result is recognition for Ukraine’s ongoing anti-corruption efforts since the 2014 Revolution of Dignity
The Revolution of Dignity? How truly Orwellian. The Maidan “Revolution”, supported by the US was an orchestrated coup d’etat by the US State Department and CIA, utilizing significant participation of card carrying, swastika wearing Ukrainian Nazis, to overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine, to facilitate the installation of an anti-Russian western puppet regime, which ultimately culminated in the current conflict.
Those small details seem to be missing from the “educational material” you offered.
Then, we must not consider the flagrant corruption between the Ukrainian puppet regime and Hunter and Joe Biden, right? “I tell ya … I met with the president and told him, if you don’t fire that prosecutor by the time I leave today, (the prosecutor investigating the corruption of Hunter’s employer) you ain’t getting the Billion Dollars! Well, son-of-a-…., the prosecutor was fired!
So, I guess this isn’t a matter of my education, but more a difference of opinion on what corruption actually is.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 02-26-2024 at 01:31 PM..
Russia already invaded, so maybe if Ukraine joins NATO, Russia will back off since that would mean every other NATO country has to fight Russia? Ukraine is a very corrupt country and I'm sure that's why they were not allowed to join NATO in years past.
Putin has been 100% clear for years...Ukraine in NATO is an existential threat to Russia and they are willing to use nukes to stop it.
Russia was saying that they would use nukes to stop Ukraine from joining NATO back before the US helped overthrow a democratically elected Ukrainian government in 2014.
Maybe the US is unnecessarily causing problems in other countries backyards?
Putin has been 100% clear for years...Ukraine in NATO is an existential threat to Russia and they are willing to use nukes to stop it.
The problem is, you actually believe that.
If Putin tried nuking anybody it would be the end of Putin, and possibly Russia as we know it. Russia doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against the combined forces of NATO. As I said before they're having a difficult time trying to conquer a friggin quarter (or less) of Ukraine, how in hell does anybody think they'd have any chance against all of NATO? Putin is stupid, but he's not that stupid.
Myth:
NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War
Fact:
Such an agreement was never made. NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949. This has never changed. No treaty signed by NATO Allies and Russia included provisions on NATO membership. Decisions on NATO membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. Russia does not have a veto.
In short, at a time when Westerners were offering the "guarantees" spoken of by Vladimir Putin, no one could have predicted the collapse of the USSR and the historic upheavals that followed.
"In addition, these promises were made orally and were never recorded in a treaty. The turning point of NATO enlargement came much later, in 1995, at the request of the Eastern European countries." https://www.france24.com/en/russia/2...ng-to-the-east
It should be noted that Russia was not in an economic or military position to do anything back in the 1990's, and that Gobachev, Yeltsin and Putin all initially tried to forge good relations with the West, whilst NATO's great rival the Warsaw pact had ceased to exist, and as such that would have been the sensible time for NATO to disband.
Just two months before Russia's invasion of Ukraine in December 2021, the man many regarded as the main architect of peace in Europe, Mikhail Gorbachev stated to the world that Washington grew "arrogant and self-confident" after the collapse of the Soviet Union, leading to the expansion of the NATO military alliance.
At the same time, Moscow presented the West with sweeping security demands, saying NATO must not admit new members and seeking to bar the United States from establishing new bases in former Soviet countries.
Quote:
On 30 November 2021 Putin stated that an expansion of NATO's presence in Ukraine, especially the deployment of any long-range missiles capable of striking Moscow or missile defence systems similar to those in Romania and Poland, would be a "red line" issue for the Kremlin. Putin argued that these missile-defense systems may be converted into launchers of offensive Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles.
He said that "In a dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on working out specific agreements that would exclude any further NATO moves eastward and the deployment of weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory."
Stoltenberg replied that "It's only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies that decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence to try to control their neighbors"
The US and NATO ignored these Russian demands and on the 24th February 2022, two months later Russian troops entered Ukraine, a country that the US had continually interfered and which Russia had provided previous embarrassing proof of US interference in relation to a taped US diplomatic phone call.
Whilst I a not supporter of Putin or Russian actions over the years, the truth is that the US and NATO must also take some of the blame for the current state of affairs, and some commentators even predicted the eventual outcome of the US led NATO expansion.
What is ironic, is that having been partially responsible for the current situation through it's interference, the US is now becoming more isolationist and protectionist, and could even decide to leave NATO, although questioning support for Article 5 has already caused a lot of damage to the current credibility of the trans-atlantic alliance.
Last edited by Brave New World; 02-26-2024 at 04:02 PM..
The USSR lost the Cold War, no point crying about the spoils going to the victor.
Why wouldn’t NATO/the “West” expand its influence (through treaties not agression) after victory?
Why does Russia have to use force and subversion to expand its influence?
The United States has done this since its’ founding and still does to this day. Both countries do whatever they want then brain wash their citizens to believe their respective “moral high ground” propagandas, such as you are demonstrating here.
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.
