holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
thats it? thats your standard?Violently invading your neighbor to acquire their territory.
thats it? thats your standard?Violently invading your neighbor to acquire their territory.
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.Hitler wanted to control Europe. U.S. wants to control the entire world and it's drilled into American psyche that this is how it supposed to be.
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.
Violently invading your neighbor to acquire their territory.
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.
That depends entirely on why you invade. But in the very least it's a much lesser degree of bad.So its OK to Violently invade if you dont keep the territory?
So in the case of national security, it might be Ok?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.
Except as usual the rhetoric and the actual reasons are not remotely related.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.
"National Security" is a very broad brush that is used to justify a lot of really bad behavior.So in the case of national security, it might be Ok?
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 ."National Security" is a very broad brush that is used to justify a lot of really bad behavior.
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 :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 ?
So, if an army massing on your border is justification for an invasion, then Ukraine would have been fully justified in invading Russia, right ?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?
Of course, why not?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.
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.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 ?
Telling your neighbor they can't do something that they have every right to do does not justify an invasion when they do it.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.
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 ?
I think he might agree with that.If Putin's goal was to keep NATO off his doorstep, he has failed miserably.
The end goal of the US and NATO is to divide and pacify the world’s biggest country, the Russian Federation, and to even establish a blanket of perpetual disorder (somalization) over its vast territory or, at a minimum, over a portion of Russia and the post-Soviet space…
The ultimate goal of the US is to prevent any alternatives from emerging in Europe and Eurasia to Euro-Atlantic integration. This is why the destruction of Russia is one of its strategic objectives….
Redrawing Eurasia: Washington’s Maps of a Divided Russia
With the division of the Russian Federation, (the) article claims that any bipolar rivalry between Moscow and Washington would end after World War III. In a stark contradiction, it claims that only when Russia is destroyed will there be a genuine multipolar world, but also implies that the US will be the most dominant global power even though Washington and the European Union will be weakened from the anticipated major war with the Russians.” (“Partitioning Russia after World War 3”, Global Research)
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.“Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests… Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology…..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia…
The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade…. we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia…and our investment opportunities in Asia’s dynamic markets.”(“America’s Pacific Century”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)
“In order to free itself from the latest web of challenges, they need to dismantle Russia as well as other states that choose a sovereign path of development, at all costs, to be able to further plunder other nations’ wealth and use it to patch their own holes. If this does not happen, I cannot rule out that they will try to trigger a collapse of the entire system, and blame everything on that, or, God forbid, decide to use the old formula of economic growth through war.”
...”the claim that Russia is “imperialist” serves a vital political function: It provides a political cover for the imperialist aggression against Russia and the war aims of the imperialist powers…. It is this strategy which the pro-NATO pseudo-left covers up for with its clamor about “Russian imperialism.” The fostering of nationalist, regionalist and ethnic tensions has been a key component of imperialist war policy for decades…..
Through a combination of NATO expansion, coups on its borders and military interventions in countries allied with Russia and China, the imperialist powers have systematically and relentlessly encircled Russia…
Indeed, if one reviews the history of the wars waged by US imperialism over the past thirty years, the unfolding war for the carve-up of Russia and China appears like a brutal inevitability. Despite their reintegration into the world capitalist system, the imperialist powers have been barred by the ruling oligarchic regimes from directly plundering the vast resources of these countries. Vying for these resources between themselves, and driven by irresolvable domestic crises, they are now determined to change this.
… the draft resolution describes the basic aims of the US war against Russia as follows: “the removal of the present regime in Russia, its replacement by an American-controlled puppet, and the breakup of Russia itself—in what is referred to as “decolonizing Russia”—into a dozen or more impotent statelets whose valuable resources will be owned and exploited by US and European finance capital.” This passage is central for understanding both the unfolding conflict and the politics of the pro-NATO pseudo-left and their insistence that Russia is an “imperialist country.” (“The historical and political principles of the socialist opposition to imperialist war and the Putin regime“,
Yes, that is correct. You and holder.
Robin
Well, at a certain level you are correct. In international geopolitics you are justified in doing anything you can get away with.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 .
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.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.
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 ?
You do realize that Ukraine is "the neighbors" in that analogy right ?They wernt afraid of the neighbors I dont believe they even said they were.
You shouldn't need a specific agreement to know that invading your neighbor is not allowed.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.
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.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.
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.
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.