holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
thats it? thats your standard?
Things are heating up in the Donbass
- Thread starter holdover
- Start date
spat
.950 JDJ
Lebensraum was literally the policy that Germany had a right to invade some lands because they were really German all along. It's the exact same rhetoric I've seen you using to defend Putin.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Theres a whole lot of gray area you overlooked
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Oh boy. You missed a whole hell of lot .
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
So its OK to Violently invade if you dont keep the territory?
If Hitler only invaded areas which were German pre-WWI and didn't practice Arian supremacy, he would actually get away with it and he wouldn't go down in history as a villain.
Last edited:
spat
.950 JDJ
That depends entirely on why you invade. But in the very least it's a much lesser degree of bad.
Sort of like breaking into someone's house is bad, but not all reasons are the same.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
So in the case of national security, it might be Ok?
spat
.950 JDJ
Except as usual the rhetoric and the actual reasons are not remotely related.
The actual reasons for the invasions were the imminent collapse of the German economy. Hitler *had* to keep going. If he stopped the whole house of cards his empire was built on would collapse.
He didn't have a path to peace, whether he wanted one or not.
I still haven't figured out the real Russian motive for this debacle. The only thing I can think is that Putin really expected this to be over in a few weeks and he was looking for the domestic political boost.
There really are a lot of parallels with the Kuwait invasion. I think both were engineered by the CIA to dupe Putin/Saddam into providing justification for some massive military spending.
Right down to the lie that we wouldn't do anything significant if they did invade.
spat
.950 JDJ
"National Security" is a very broad brush that is used to justify a lot of really bad behavior.
Are you suggesting that Ukraine posed any sort of real threat to Russian national security ?
Or just that Putin’s paranoia despite all logic somehow justified this ?
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
That is true, However, Russia recognized this possible threat 30 years ago and during the break up of the soviet union and It was made clear to Ukraine and to the world numerous times That Ukraine joining NATO would be an unacceptable threat to Russia and would mean war. It was contingent upon release from the soviet union that Ukraine remain neutral. It was written into their constitution. Ukraine had adhered to its agreement with Russia until the 2014 overthrow of the government. All of which are historical facts .
would you define what a national security threat is so we can all be on the same page?
Ukraine alone never posed a threat to Russia. NATO did. NATO offered Ukraine a membership knowing full well it was a red line to war for the Russians , they did it anyways . they wanted the war , they armed the Ukraine. Russia wasnt even prepared for a war as was evidenced by the piss poor planning and training , lack of manpower to do the job, they had less forces than Ukraine at the start of the war. ' They tried to end the fighting in the donbass with the Minsk accords . the ones angela merkle said :
“The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time,” Merkel told the weekly Die Zeit. “It also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today.”
NATO used the “valuable time” (Merkel) gained by this terror to rebuild, arm to the teeth, and train the Ukrainian armed forces. For example, according to a British parliamentary report, the British Army has trained and equipped Ukrainian soldiers since 2014. Ukraine has not formally become part of NATO but is doing so in practice.Russia’s decision to take military action against Ukraine was the predictable—and intended—reaction to this NATO offensive.
If you dont think 30 allied countries armed and prepared to fight against you isn't a threat , I dont know what else to tell you, Your in denial of reality.
Where do you get this shit from? Hes Paranoid? He eats babies ?
Logic!!! Thats rich. He has an army massing on his border and he is supposed to do nothing about? What kind of logic is that? Dont fire until your fired on??? WTF! He warned them countless times it was a red line to war , and NATO could careless . they would allow Ukraine into NATO even if it meant war . Putin was forced to act before they actually joined NATO or he was fucked . Logic?
spat
.950 JDJ
So, if an army massing on your border is justification for an invasion, then Ukraine would have been fully justified in invading Russia, right ?
The concept that Ukraine would have invaded Russia is ridiculous. Why ? How ? If Putin seriously considered that a possibility, then he is absolutely paranoid.
Are you seriously claiming that Russia was dully justified in invading Ukraine because of their troop buildup, but Ukraine wasn't justified building up troops when Russia was assembling an invasion force right across the border ?
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Of course, why not?
I dont recall Putin or Russia say they were concerned about a Ukrainian invasion of Russia , not sure where you get that from They were always concerned about NATO on their doorstep. which makes perfectly good sense .Unless your refering to the 170,000 troops near the Crimea just prior to the invasion . The ukraians were threating to strike to take the crimea back, which is perfectly understandable and legit . Paranoid??? No.
No of course not. Russia was justified to invade Ukraine because they were going to join NATO from which a coalition of 30 nations armys would be on thier doorstep . A action which had been made perfectly clear for 30 years . by loseing Crimea they would have lost the entire black sea to NATO which controls the shipping to and from Russia . If this isn't vital national security issue, I dont know what is.
This isnt made up Russian propaganda, Ukraine was talking about handing over the ports to NATO .You want him to sit there and wait?
Putin tried talking to that nutcase comedian , but he didnt want to hear it.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization .. NATO
should be called the North Atlantic $$$ Washing Machine ..
should be called the North Atlantic $$$ Washing Machine ..
spat
.950 JDJ
Telling your neighbor they can't do something that they have every right to do does not justify an invasion when they do it.
Would it have been reasonable for us to just annex Cuba as a territory because we didn't like who their friends were ?
If Canada gets too friendly with China, do we just March on Toronto, then declare Ontario a US territory ?
Can we just take Sonora from Mexico because they aren't controlling the cartels well enough ?
Would Russia be justified in invading Finland and Sweden again, now that they *are* joining NATO ? Not just talking about it, but actually joining ?
If Putin's goal was to keep NATO off his doorstep, he has failed miserably. Every former Soviet state that isn't already a Russian puppet is desperate to join NATO now, before they are "liberated".
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
If that action puts your country in jeopardy , they have every reason to tell them so , if they ignore 30 years of warning , they have to bear the consequences of their own actions. If the national security of Russia is at stake because of the actions of Ukraine they have every justification to protect themselves . They dont need to wait until NATO seizes the naval bases or places missiles in Ukraine and by doing so they avoided a direct conflict with NATO which would have happened .
Friends? Nobody gives a shit about friends, the deal is national security , and when cuba had missiles placed there we told Russia and cuba to remove them immediately or face an invasion . The US was planning to go to war with Cuba and if need be, the Soviet Union The US would not tolerate Russian missiles 90 miles off our coast . they had every intention to destroy Cuba if they did not comply . The justification was that it was a national security threat . And it was.
Canada is very friendly with China now. No, we dont invade because of friendships, It means nothing.However if China decides to put navel bases in Vancouver or Toronto or Nova Scotia. We would do like we did with cuba, If those bases were not removed , We would remove them ourselves based on national security. In case you were not aware, haveing an enemy army or navy on your border is considered a threat , no matter who you are, and it justify s an invasion if necessary.
Its already being talked about. theres a limit on how much bullshit we take from these criminals
It depends on how great the threat was to Russia , if they felt they had to , it would be justified. They have thier hands full now in Ukraine, the last thing they need is to invite NATO into the war , strategically, it would be a mistake to do it now.
I think he might agree with that.
All this talk about Putin wanting to bring back the soviet union , or invade Europe is absolute bullshit . this was never an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine , It was very much provoked and anticipated by the west . Anyone who thinks otherwise is brainwashed and unaware of the situation .
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Why the fuck would Putin be worried when think tanks talk about the dissolution of the Russian federation?
Hudson Institute
1. Preparing for every possibility of what the Russian Federation could look like at the end of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, whenever it may end, is not synonymous with calling for regime change. It is prudent for US and allied policymakers to have an awareness of the different social and ethnic dynamics within the Russian Federation and the potential cracks that may erupt.
2. Unlike the fall of the Soviet Union, when scholars and policymakers knew what the resulting 15 states would look like, it is unknowable which, and how many, ethnic groups in Russia may seek independence, let alone when. But it is almost certain that these ruptures will not align perfectly along the oblasts and republics depicted on the map today.
3. The first step in mitigating the effects of this potential dissolution is for US and allied policymakers to show up in the region as well as in friendly countries throughout the Caucasus and Central Asia. It will also require working with sometimes difficult allies like Turkey to ensure that China does not fill the power vaccum left on the Eurasian landmass.
a Russian defeat would likely lead to the dissolution of the Russian Federation as it is known today. Because of the Kremlin’s decision to attack Ukraine, Moscow’s once extensive influence across Eurasia has dwindled, and the war has devastated Russia’s economy, military, and social stability. US and allied policymakers need to understand this possibility and prepare for the new Eurasian geopolitical reality that a fall of the Russian Federation might bring.
Join Hudson Institute and The Jamestown Foundation to discuss Russian domestic social friction and what US and allied policymakers need to do now to prepare for the country’s possible collapse.
Such arguments were advanced at a meeting in Brussels convened by the European Conservatives and Reform group, the conservative bloc in the European Parliament, on January 31. They called for the creation of 34 new states on the territory of the Russian Federation. In Washington, DC the Hudson Institute and Jamestown Foundation met to discuss “Preparing for the dissolution of the Russian Federation” on February 14; while a “Free Peoples of Russia Forum” convened in Sweden in December 2022. The case was laid out by Janusz Bugajski in his book “Failed State: A Guide to Russia’s Rupture.”
Some will argue that the end of the Russian Federation will remove any need for a strong US military presence in Europe. But nobody knows what kind of Russia will emerge after Vladimir Putin’s reign. So the US and its partners should take steps to mitigate, marginalize, contain, deter, and if necessary defeat Russia for the foreseeable future.
www.hudson.org
When possible, hold those in Russia accountable for atrocities committed in Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made an interesting proposal,2 supported by various Western parliamentary bodies,3 to create a Special Tribunal for the Punishment of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. The tribunal would hold Russia’s most senior political and military leaders accountable for committing the crime of aggression against Ukraine. (Kill Putin)
No one can offer concrete recommendations for policymakers regarding a post-Putin Russia. However, they should ask seven questions now, while considering the aforementioned goals and assumptions, to better prepare for the final collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Russian Federation.
Should NATO and the EU take advantage of Moscow’s weakness and push for a “big bang” enlargement for remaining candidate and aspirant countries? There are several countries in Europe that aspire to someday join either the European Union, NATO, or both. For countries like Georgia and Ukraine, the primary stumbling block has been pressure and armed aggression from Russia. If the Russian Federation dissolves, the EU and NATO should consider accelerating the membership process for select countries.
The success of Ukraine on the battlefield against Russia could offer a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put Russia back inside its geopolitical box for a generation. This would create a new geopolitical reality not seen in a generation
Putin said in September 2022 that Western leaders “say openly now that in 1991 they managed to split up the Soviet Union and now is the time to do the same to Russia, which must be divided into numerous regions that would be at deadly feud with each other.” On February 26, he said that the West wants to break Russia into pieces. Nail Mukhitov, a Security Council adviser and former FSB general, said, “The West’s main goal is the destruction of Russia,” and in support quoted Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book “Grand Chessboard.”
Brzezinski sums up US imperial ambitions succinctly. Washington plans to establish its primacy in the world’s most prosperous and populous region, Eurasia. And–in order to do so– Russia must be decimated and partitioned, its leaders must be toppled and replaced, and its vast resources must be transferred to the iron grip of global transnationals who will use them to perpetuate the flow of wealth from east to west. In other words, Moscow must accept its humble role in the new order as America’s de-facto Gas and Mining Company.
Washington has never really veered from its aim of obliterating the Russian state, in fact, the recently released National Security Strategy (NSS) along with a congressional report titled “Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress”, confirm much of what we have said here, that the US plans to crush any emerging opposition to its expansion into Central Asia in order to become the dominant player in that region.
Check out this excerpt from an article titled “Partitioning Russia After World War III?”:
Hillary making the case back in 2011:
Here’s Putin again:
Former US Vice President Dick Cheney, a lead architect of the Iraq War, not only wanted to dismantle the Soviet Union; he also wanted to break up Russia itself, to prevent it from rising again as a significant political power.
Balkanizing Russia, as NATO did to former Yugoslavia, is a fantasy shared by many hawks in the US national security state. They will never tolerate an independent government in Moscow, regardless of whether or not it is socialist.
Former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote that, “When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat.”
geopoliticaleconomy.com
US foreign policy experts are shameless in their promotion of theories that threaten to trigger a direct military confrontation with Russia that could result in a nuclear exchange. In a recent “webinar for congressmen and women hosted on June 23 under the title “Decolonizing Russia.” The webinar, staffed by CIA operatives and right-wing nationalists from Ukraine and the Caucasus, effectively argued that Russia was a colonial empire that had to be broken up with the support of Washington.” (WSWS) The author explores the reasons why some experts want to brand Russia as “imperialist”?
An article at the WSWS explains why:
www.eurasiareview.com
Do you know why politicians think the public is stupid? because they are. willfully blind morons , This fucking war started with the break up of the soviet union back in 91 . but people are clueless to understand the history of what is happening .
Putin is a landgrabbing Hitler intent to invade all of Europe, get the fuck out of here. Putin is a lunatic, Putin is paranoid , pick up a fucking book and read what the fuck is really going on.
Hudson Institute
1. Preparing for every possibility of what the Russian Federation could look like at the end of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, whenever it may end, is not synonymous with calling for regime change. It is prudent for US and allied policymakers to have an awareness of the different social and ethnic dynamics within the Russian Federation and the potential cracks that may erupt.
2. Unlike the fall of the Soviet Union, when scholars and policymakers knew what the resulting 15 states would look like, it is unknowable which, and how many, ethnic groups in Russia may seek independence, let alone when. But it is almost certain that these ruptures will not align perfectly along the oblasts and republics depicted on the map today.
3. The first step in mitigating the effects of this potential dissolution is for US and allied policymakers to show up in the region as well as in friendly countries throughout the Caucasus and Central Asia. It will also require working with sometimes difficult allies like Turkey to ensure that China does not fill the power vaccum left on the Eurasian landmass.
a Russian defeat would likely lead to the dissolution of the Russian Federation as it is known today. Because of the Kremlin’s decision to attack Ukraine, Moscow’s once extensive influence across Eurasia has dwindled, and the war has devastated Russia’s economy, military, and social stability. US and allied policymakers need to understand this possibility and prepare for the new Eurasian geopolitical reality that a fall of the Russian Federation might bring.
Join Hudson Institute and The Jamestown Foundation to discuss Russian domestic social friction and what US and allied policymakers need to do now to prepare for the country’s possible collapse.
Such arguments were advanced at a meeting in Brussels convened by the European Conservatives and Reform group, the conservative bloc in the European Parliament, on January 31. They called for the creation of 34 new states on the territory of the Russian Federation. In Washington, DC the Hudson Institute and Jamestown Foundation met to discuss “Preparing for the dissolution of the Russian Federation” on February 14; while a “Free Peoples of Russia Forum” convened in Sweden in December 2022. The case was laid out by Janusz Bugajski in his book “Failed State: A Guide to Russia’s Rupture.”
Some will argue that the end of the Russian Federation will remove any need for a strong US military presence in Europe. But nobody knows what kind of Russia will emerge after Vladimir Putin’s reign. So the US and its partners should take steps to mitigate, marginalize, contain, deter, and if necessary defeat Russia for the foreseeable future.
Preparing for the Dissolution of the Russian Federation
When possible, hold those in Russia accountable for atrocities committed in Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made an interesting proposal,2 supported by various Western parliamentary bodies,3 to create a Special Tribunal for the Punishment of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. The tribunal would hold Russia’s most senior political and military leaders accountable for committing the crime of aggression against Ukraine. (Kill Putin)
No one can offer concrete recommendations for policymakers regarding a post-Putin Russia. However, they should ask seven questions now, while considering the aforementioned goals and assumptions, to better prepare for the final collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Russian Federation.
Should NATO and the EU take advantage of Moscow’s weakness and push for a “big bang” enlargement for remaining candidate and aspirant countries? There are several countries in Europe that aspire to someday join either the European Union, NATO, or both. For countries like Georgia and Ukraine, the primary stumbling block has been pressure and armed aggression from Russia. If the Russian Federation dissolves, the EU and NATO should consider accelerating the membership process for select countries.
The success of Ukraine on the battlefield against Russia could offer a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put Russia back inside its geopolitical box for a generation. This would create a new geopolitical reality not seen in a generation
Putin said in September 2022 that Western leaders “say openly now that in 1991 they managed to split up the Soviet Union and now is the time to do the same to Russia, which must be divided into numerous regions that would be at deadly feud with each other.” On February 26, he said that the West wants to break Russia into pieces. Nail Mukhitov, a Security Council adviser and former FSB general, said, “The West’s main goal is the destruction of Russia,” and in support quoted Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book “Grand Chessboard.”
Brzezinski sums up US imperial ambitions succinctly. Washington plans to establish its primacy in the world’s most prosperous and populous region, Eurasia. And–in order to do so– Russia must be decimated and partitioned, its leaders must be toppled and replaced, and its vast resources must be transferred to the iron grip of global transnationals who will use them to perpetuate the flow of wealth from east to west. In other words, Moscow must accept its humble role in the new order as America’s de-facto Gas and Mining Company.
Washington has never really veered from its aim of obliterating the Russian state, in fact, the recently released National Security Strategy (NSS) along with a congressional report titled “Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress”, confirm much of what we have said here, that the US plans to crush any emerging opposition to its expansion into Central Asia in order to become the dominant player in that region.
Check out this excerpt from an article titled “Partitioning Russia After World War III?”:
Hillary making the case back in 2011:
A careful reading of Clinton’s speech along with a review of the Wolfowitz Doctrine will help even the most obtuse reader to draw some obvious conclusions about the current conflict in Ukraine which has almost nothing to do with so-called “Russian aggression”, but everything to do with Washington’s plan to project power across Asia , control Russia’s massive oil and gas reserves, encircle China with military bases, and establish American domination at the epicenter of this century’s most prosperous market.
Here’s Putin again:
Former US Vice President Dick Cheney, a lead architect of the Iraq War, not only wanted to dismantle the Soviet Union; he also wanted to break up Russia itself, to prevent it from rising again as a significant political power.
Balkanizing Russia, as NATO did to former Yugoslavia, is a fantasy shared by many hawks in the US national security state. They will never tolerate an independent government in Moscow, regardless of whether or not it is socialist.
Former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote that, “When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat.”
Dick Cheney confirmed US goal to break up Russia as country, not just USSR - Geopolitical Economy Report
Ex Vice President Dick Cheney wanted to break up Russia, not just the USSR. Balkanization is a bipartisan foreign-policy goal among top US national security state officials.
geopoliticaleconomy.com
US foreign policy experts are shameless in their promotion of theories that threaten to trigger a direct military confrontation with Russia that could result in a nuclear exchange. In a recent “webinar for congressmen and women hosted on June 23 under the title “Decolonizing Russia.” The webinar, staffed by CIA operatives and right-wing nationalists from Ukraine and the Caucasus, effectively argued that Russia was a colonial empire that had to be broken up with the support of Washington.” (WSWS) The author explores the reasons why some experts want to brand Russia as “imperialist”?
An article at the WSWS explains why:
Washington’s Plan To Break Up Russia – OpEd
Washington’s animus towards Russia has a long history dating back to 1918 when Woodrow Wilson deployed over 7,000 troops to Siberia as part of an Allied effort to roll back the gains of the Bolshevik Revolution. The activities of the American Expeditionary Force, which remained in the country...
www.eurasiareview.com
Do you know why politicians think the public is stupid? because they are. willfully blind morons , This fucking war started with the break up of the soviet union back in 91 . but people are clueless to understand the history of what is happening .
Putin is a landgrabbing Hitler intent to invade all of Europe, get the fuck out of here. Putin is a lunatic, Putin is paranoid , pick up a fucking book and read what the fuck is really going on.
I think to get to the point where you are "open" to considering Russia isn't as they are being made out by western propoganda you first have to get to the point of making peace with the possibility that (the west, US, NATO, globalists) might not be the good guys here, and for many they just can't mentally cross that river.
I actually am becoming very cynical that the west and NATO are pushing this to try and prevent BRICS from out competing us and taking our position as the global super power backend by a fiat global reserve currency which has allowed us to be immune on the global stage. They realize that is in jeopardy and this is part of their chess move to try and keep that gravy train going.
To get to this point you have to objectively consider some pretty depressing motives and thoughts. They are totally fine to weaken and destabilize Europe and Russia to have the US retain their strength.
Let's see what shenanigans and horrible decisions they have in store for Taiwan and china because unlike Russia China is our actual real enemy.
Don't you think it's rather peculiar that we suddenly care about sub Saharan African shit holes? Oh that's right they are full of resources, oil, uranium, rare earth minerals, etc and are all flirting with BRICS and going to Russias sphere of influence. Oh what's that Iran is looking to join BRICS and actively trying to have the USD Petro dollar replaced by a new currency as the global reserve? Nothing to see here...no conflict about to start there.
If I was president I would almost immediately shutter 90% of US overseas bases, contract the military to focus on domestic protection, stop trying to be the worlds policeman and using the USD as the stick to keep their rate country's in line. We need to contract and live within our means. The rest of the world is quickly losing their patience with America and being coerced and threatened all the time. America needs to worry about America. The rest of the world should not take priority of domestic concerns.
spat
.950 JDJ
Well, at a certain level you are correct. In international geopolitics you are justified in doing anything you can get away with.
But in this case, it seems that Ukraine's fear of Russia was fully justified. Russian's fear of NATO was obviously not.
Nobody in NATO was considering invading Russia anytime in this century, why would they ?
There's nothing to be gained.
But, now, thanks to Russia's Ukraine misadventure, it might become a self fulfilling prophecy.
One of the core tenets of self defense is that you must be in *reasonable* fear of serious harm. Paranoia isn't justification.
What Russia has done is conduct a home invasion because they don't like the new guns their neighbor bought, or the people he bought them from. It doesn't matter how much they claim it's a threat, if it wasn't a reasonable fear, then it's not justification for self defense.
Or, do you think it's OK to just break in and murder everyone if you think your neighbors are having dangerous guests over ?
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Seems I have said it quite plainly, there are no good guy in this shit show. Except those brave young, and not so young men. The rest is idle speculation based on the bullshit one chooses to believe.
Robin
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
They wernt afraid of the neighbors I dont believe they even said they were.
spat
.950 JDJ
You do realize that Ukraine is "the neighbors" in that analogy right ?
Their entire justification, that you have been parroting this whole thread, is that "the neighbors" were a threat to their national security.
There was a war already going on in Ukraine before Russian invasion. Ukraine signed an agreement (Minsk) and violated it to keep the war going. Ukraine is on record publically stating they will not follow the agreement they signed. Russia was a party to that negotiated agreement.
If there was nothing else, that alone justifies Russian invasion.
Western belief that any agreement negotiated with Russia is a one way agreement will not stand.
If there was nothing else, that alone justifies Russian invasion.
Western belief that any agreement negotiated with Russia is a one way agreement will not stand.
Last edited:
spat
.950 JDJ
You shouldn't need a specific agreement to know that invading your neighbor is not allowed.
We don't have such an agreement with Canada or Mexico, but the idea that we would just roll troops in against their will is laughable.
Kuwait didn't have any agreement with Iraq not to invade, but people seemed to think that wasn't justified either.
I think this will work out as well for Putin as it did for Saddam.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Yes. I dont believe Russia ever said Ukraine is a threat, that they were concerned with an invasion by Ukraine , that Ukraine wanted to destroy Russia. I do remember the Russians calling them slavic brothers.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
The fact that you really believe this is laughable . didnt you say something like the law of jungle , or intentional law means nothing, prison yard politics something like that? We wouldn't hesitate to invade Mexico or Canada if we had to . Necessity trumps morality every time in geo politics , get morality out of your head , these are not moral men . They can care less if all Ukraine's died , they wouldnt lose a wink of sleep
Mexico and Canada was shelling Americans living in their country and we didn't intervene militaraly? Darn....
