holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Chebureki Man
@CheburekiMan
Imagine being German and not comprehending that two of your NATO allies blew up your cheap gas supply and substituted it with their expensive gas supplies.
11:00 PM · Feb 9, 2023·
62.6K
Views
Things are heating up in the Donbass
- Thread starter holdover
- Start date
Chebureki Man
@CheburekiMan
Imagine being German and not comprehending that two of your NATO allies blew up your cheap gas supply and substituted it with their expensive gas supplies.
11:00 PM · Feb 9, 2023·
62.6K
Views
Chebureki Man
@CheburekiMan
Imagine being German and not comprehending that two of your NATO allies blew up your cheap gas supply and substituted it with their expensive gas supplies.
11:00 PM · Feb 9, 2023·
62.6K
Views
US is still occupying Germany. Defacto they are not a sovereign nation. As Russia was developing business ties with Germany, US became alarmed. Combination of Russian natural resources and German manufacturing capabilities were a threat to American industry.
Last edited:
Before We End Up In Wars With Russia And China Simultaneously, Let’s Review The Nuclear Balance Of Power…
"It has been said that there are no winners in a nuclear war, but the Russians and the Chinese have been feverishly preparing to fight one anyway."
"Unfortunately, the balance of power has changed dramatically over the past decade. Russia and China have both made enormous leaps forward, and that puts us in a very precarious position."
"It has been said that there are no winners in a nuclear war, but the Russians and the Chinese have been feverishly preparing to fight one anyway."
"Unfortunately, the balance of power has changed dramatically over the past decade. Russia and China have both made enormous leaps forward, and that puts us in a very precarious position."
MothMan
.338 Win Mag
Fill up your tanks!! Abrams that is.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/WWCYQH7RTVLQ7NAAYP5GH567XU.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Oil prices rise over 2% on Russian plan to cut output
Oil prices rose more than 2% on Friday and posted weekly gains of over 8%, as Russia announced plans to reduce oil production next month after the West imposed price caps on the country's crude and fuel.
www.reuters.com
Ukrainian troops equipped with devastating HIMARS are waiting for US targeting data before firing on Russian forces, officials say
One official told The Washington Post that Kyiv identifies targets and requests US coordinates. If the US doesn't provide them, Ukraine won't fire.
So that's confirmation that the US is doing everything but "pushing the fire button".
We supply the launcher, the missiles, the surveillance, the targeting data. A Ukrainian drives the truck and pushes the button.
Even if you're very pro Ukraine this should be deeply concerning to you.
I don't like this at all.
At what point does Russia say they can't let our US and NATO assets and our direct support be continually allowed to kill Russian service members and disrupt their objectives with immunity and at what point do they decide to shoot down our J-stars surveillance planes over the black sea? That's essentially putting us into a direct defacto state of war with Russia.
Last edited:
Award winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh (who broke the story of My Lai massacre) uncovered evidence and details of U.S. military carrying out explosion of Nord Stream Pipeline. It is no longer a claim, it is a historical fact. Plans to blow up the pipeline were made before Feb 24th of last year.
seymourhersh.substack.com
How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline
The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now
seymourhersh.substack.com
Last edited:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
On February 16, 2022, a full week before Putin sent combat troops into Ukraine, the Ukrainian Army began the heavy bombardment of the area (in east Ukraine) occupied by mainly ethnic Russians.
Officials from the Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) were located in the vicinity at the time and kept a record of the shelling as it took place. What the OSCE discovered was that the bombardment dramatically intensified as the week went on until it reached a peak on February 19, when a total of 2,026 artillery strikes were recorded. Keep in mind, the Ukrainian Army was, in fact, shelling civilian areas along the Line of Contact that were occupied by other Ukrainians.
We want to emphasize that the officials from the OSCE were operating in their professional capacity gathering first-hand evidence of shelling in the area. What their data shows is that Ukrainian Forces were bombing and killing their own people. This has all been documented and has not been challenged.
So, the question we must all ask ourselves is this: Is the bombardment and slaughter of one’s own people an ‘act of war’?
We think it is. And if we are right, then we must logically assume that the war began before the Russian invasion (which was launched a full week later) We must also assume that Russia’s alleged “unprovoked aggression” was not unprovoked at all but was the appropriate humanitarian response to the deliberate killing of civilians. In order to argue that the Russian invasion was ‘not provoked’, we would have to say that firing over 4,000 artillery shells into towns and neighborhoods where women and children live, is not a provocation? Who will defend that point of view?
No one, because it’s absurd. The killing of civilians in the Donbas was a clear provocation, a provocation that was aimed at goading Russia into a war. And –as we said earlier– the OSCE had monitors on the ground who provided full documentation of the shelling as it took place, which is as close to ironclad, eyewitness testimony as you’re going to get.
This, of course, is a major break with the “official narrative” which identifies Russia as the perpetrator of hostilities. But, as we’ve shown, that simply isn’t the case. The official narrative is wrong. Even so, it might not surprise you to know that most of the mainstream media completely omitted any coverage of the OSCE’s fact-finding activities in east Ukraine. The one exception to was Reuters that published a deliberately opaque account published on February 18 titled “Russia voices alarm over sharp increase of Donbass shelling”. Here’s an excerpt:
Quote: Larry C. Johnson, A Son of a New Revolution
The point we are trying to make is simple: The war in Ukraine was not launched by a tyrannical Russian leader (Putin) bent on rebuilding the Soviet Empire. That narrative is a fraud that was cobbled together by neocon spin-meisters trying to build public support for a war with Russia. The facts I am presenting here can be identified on a map where the actual explosions took place and were then recorded by officials whose job was to fulfill that very task. Can you see the difference between the two? In one case, the storyline rests on speculation, conjecture and psychobabble; while in the other, the storyline is linked to actual events that took place on the ground and were catalogued by trained professionals in the field. In which version of events do you have more confidence?
Bottom line: Russia did not start the war in Ukraine. That is a fake narrative. The responsibility lies with the Ukrainian Army and their leaders in Kiev.
Officials from the Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) were located in the vicinity at the time and kept a record of the shelling as it took place. What the OSCE discovered was that the bombardment dramatically intensified as the week went on until it reached a peak on February 19, when a total of 2,026 artillery strikes were recorded. Keep in mind, the Ukrainian Army was, in fact, shelling civilian areas along the Line of Contact that were occupied by other Ukrainians.
We want to emphasize that the officials from the OSCE were operating in their professional capacity gathering first-hand evidence of shelling in the area. What their data shows is that Ukrainian Forces were bombing and killing their own people. This has all been documented and has not been challenged.
So, the question we must all ask ourselves is this: Is the bombardment and slaughter of one’s own people an ‘act of war’?
We think it is. And if we are right, then we must logically assume that the war began before the Russian invasion (which was launched a full week later) We must also assume that Russia’s alleged “unprovoked aggression” was not unprovoked at all but was the appropriate humanitarian response to the deliberate killing of civilians. In order to argue that the Russian invasion was ‘not provoked’, we would have to say that firing over 4,000 artillery shells into towns and neighborhoods where women and children live, is not a provocation? Who will defend that point of view?
No one, because it’s absurd. The killing of civilians in the Donbas was a clear provocation, a provocation that was aimed at goading Russia into a war. And –as we said earlier– the OSCE had monitors on the ground who provided full documentation of the shelling as it took place, which is as close to ironclad, eyewitness testimony as you’re going to get.
This, of course, is a major break with the “official narrative” which identifies Russia as the perpetrator of hostilities. But, as we’ve shown, that simply isn’t the case. The official narrative is wrong. Even so, it might not surprise you to know that most of the mainstream media completely omitted any coverage of the OSCE’s fact-finding activities in east Ukraine. The one exception to was Reuters that published a deliberately opaque account published on February 18 titled “Russia voices alarm over sharp increase of Donbass shelling”. Here’s an excerpt:
Notice the clever way that Reuters frames its coverage so that the claims of the Ukrainian military are given as much credibility as the claims of the Russian Foreign Minister. What Reuters fails to point out is that the OSCE’s report verifies Lavrov’s version of events while disproving the claims of the Ukrainians. It is the job of a journalist to make the distinction between fact and fiction but, once again, we see how agenda-driven news is not meant to inform but to mislead.
Quote: Larry C. Johnson, A Son of a New Revolution
The point we are trying to make is simple: The war in Ukraine was not launched by a tyrannical Russian leader (Putin) bent on rebuilding the Soviet Empire. That narrative is a fraud that was cobbled together by neocon spin-meisters trying to build public support for a war with Russia. The facts I am presenting here can be identified on a map where the actual explosions took place and were then recorded by officials whose job was to fulfill that very task. Can you see the difference between the two? In one case, the storyline rests on speculation, conjecture and psychobabble; while in the other, the storyline is linked to actual events that took place on the ground and were catalogued by trained professionals in the field. In which version of events do you have more confidence?
Bottom line: Russia did not start the war in Ukraine. That is a fake narrative. The responsibility lies with the Ukrainian Army and their leaders in Kiev.
Last edited:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
And here’s something else that is typically excluded in the media’s selective coverage. Before Putin sent his tanks across the border into Ukraine, he invoked United Nations Article 51 which provides a legal justification for military intervention. Of course, the United States has done this numerous times to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy to its numerous military interventions. But, in this case, you can see where the so-called Responsibility To Protect (R2P) could actually be justified, after all, by most estimates, the Ukrainian army has killed over 14,000 ethnic Russians since the US-backed coup 8 years ago. If ever there was a situation in which a defensive military operation could be justified, this was it. But that still doesn’t fully explain why Putin invoked UN Article 51. For that, we turn to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who explained it like this:
No, they haven’t, because to do so, would be an admission that Putin’s military operation complies with international law. Instead, the media continues to spread the fiction that ‘Hitler-Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet empire’, a claim for which there is not a scintilla of evidence. Keep in mind, Putin’s operation does not involve the toppling of a foreign government to install a Moscow-backed stooge, or the arming and training a foreign military that will be used as proxies to fight a geopolitical rival, or the stuffing a country with state-of-the-art weaponry to achieve his own narrow strategic objectives, or perpetrating terrorist acts of industrial sabotage (Nord-Stream 2) to prevent the economic integration of Asia and Europe. No, Putin hasn’t engaged in any of these things. But Washington certainly has, because Washington isn’t constrained by international law. In Washington’s eyes, international law is merely an inconvenience that is dismissively shrugged off whenever unilateral action is required. But Putin is not nearly as cavalier about such matters, in fact, he has a long history of playing by the rules because he believes the rules help to strengthen everyone’s security. And, he’s right; they do.
And that’s why he invoked Article 51 before he sent the troops to help the people in the Donbas. He felt he had a moral obligation to lend them his assistance but wanted his actions to comply with international law. We think he achieved both.
Here’s a bit more background from an article by foreign policy analyst Danial Kovalik:
So, has anyone in the western media reported on the fact that Putin invoked UN Article 51 before he launched the Special Military Operation?
No, they haven’t, because to do so, would be an admission that Putin’s military operation complies with international law. Instead, the media continues to spread the fiction that ‘Hitler-Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet empire’, a claim for which there is not a scintilla of evidence. Keep in mind, Putin’s operation does not involve the toppling of a foreign government to install a Moscow-backed stooge, or the arming and training a foreign military that will be used as proxies to fight a geopolitical rival, or the stuffing a country with state-of-the-art weaponry to achieve his own narrow strategic objectives, or perpetrating terrorist acts of industrial sabotage (Nord-Stream 2) to prevent the economic integration of Asia and Europe. No, Putin hasn’t engaged in any of these things. But Washington certainly has, because Washington isn’t constrained by international law. In Washington’s eyes, international law is merely an inconvenience that is dismissively shrugged off whenever unilateral action is required. But Putin is not nearly as cavalier about such matters, in fact, he has a long history of playing by the rules because he believes the rules help to strengthen everyone’s security. And, he’s right; they do.
And that’s why he invoked Article 51 before he sent the troops to help the people in the Donbas. He felt he had a moral obligation to lend them his assistance but wanted his actions to comply with international law. We think he achieved both.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Here’s something else you will never see in the western media. You’ll never see the actual text of Putin’s security demands that were made a full two months before the war broke out. And, the reason you won’t see them, is because his demands were legitimate, reasonable and necessary. All Putin wanted was basic assurances that NATO was not planning to put its bases, armies and missile sites on Russia’s border. In other words, he was doing the same thing that all responsible leaders do to defend the safety and security of their own people.
ere are a few critical excerpts from the text of Putin’s proposal to the US and NATO:
So, what can we deduce from Putin’s list of demands?
First, we can deduce that he is not trying to reconstruct the Soviet empire as the MSM relentlessly insists. The list focuses exclusively on security-related demands, nothing else.
Second, it proves that the war could have easily been avoided had Zelensky simply maintained the status quo and formally announced that Ukraine would remain neutral. In fact, Zelensky actually agreed to neutrality in negotiations with Moscow in March, but Washington prevented the Ukrainian president from going through with the deal which means that the Biden administration is largely responsible for the ongoing conflict. (RT published an article stating clearly that an agreement had been reached between Russia and Ukraine in March but the deal was intentionally scuttled by the US and UK. Washington wanted a war.)
Third, it shows that Putin is a reasonable leader whose demands should have been eagerly accepted. Was it unreasonable of Putin to ask that “The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and… military alliances.. in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security”? Was it unreasonable for him the ask that “The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories”?
Where exactly are the “unreasonable demands” that Putin supposedly made?
There aren’t any. Putin made no demands that the US wouldn’t have made if ‘the shoe was on the other foot.’
Fourth, it proves that the war is not a struggle for Ukrainian liberation or democracy. That’s hogwash. It is a war that is aimed at “weakening” Russia and eventually removing Putin from power. Those are the overriding goals. What that means is that Ukrainian soldiers are not dying for their country, they are dying for an elitist dream to expand NATO, crush Russia, encircle China, and extend US hegemony for another century. Ukraine is merely the battlefield on which the Great Power struggle is being fought.
There are number points we are trying to make in this article:
ere are a few critical excerpts from the text of Putin’s proposal to the US and NATO:
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what Putin was worried about. He was worried about NATO expansion and, in particular, the emergence of a hostile military alliance backed by Washington-groomed Nazis occupying territory on his western flank. Was that unreasonable of him? Should he have embraced these US-backed Russophobes and allowed them to place their missiles on his border? Would that have been the prudent thing to do?
So, what can we deduce from Putin’s list of demands?
First, we can deduce that he is not trying to reconstruct the Soviet empire as the MSM relentlessly insists. The list focuses exclusively on security-related demands, nothing else.
Second, it proves that the war could have easily been avoided had Zelensky simply maintained the status quo and formally announced that Ukraine would remain neutral. In fact, Zelensky actually agreed to neutrality in negotiations with Moscow in March, but Washington prevented the Ukrainian president from going through with the deal which means that the Biden administration is largely responsible for the ongoing conflict. (RT published an article stating clearly that an agreement had been reached between Russia and Ukraine in March but the deal was intentionally scuttled by the US and UK. Washington wanted a war.)
Third, it shows that Putin is a reasonable leader whose demands should have been eagerly accepted. Was it unreasonable of Putin to ask that “The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and… military alliances.. in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security”? Was it unreasonable for him the ask that “The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories”?
Where exactly are the “unreasonable demands” that Putin supposedly made?
There aren’t any. Putin made no demands that the US wouldn’t have made if ‘the shoe was on the other foot.’
Fourth, it proves that the war is not a struggle for Ukrainian liberation or democracy. That’s hogwash. It is a war that is aimed at “weakening” Russia and eventually removing Putin from power. Those are the overriding goals. What that means is that Ukrainian soldiers are not dying for their country, they are dying for an elitist dream to expand NATO, crush Russia, encircle China, and extend US hegemony for another century. Ukraine is merely the battlefield on which the Great Power struggle is being fought.
There are number points we are trying to make in this article:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
The aim of the Minsk agreement was to end the fighting between the Ukrainian army and ethnic Russians in the Donbas region of Ukraine. It was the responsibility of the four participants in the treaty– Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine– to ensure that both sides followed the terms of the deal. But in December, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in an interview with a German magazine, that there was never any intention of implementing the deal, instead, the plan was to use the time to make Ukraine stronger in order to prepare for a war with Russia. So, clearly, from the very beginning, the United States intended to provoke a war with Russia.
On September 5, 2014, Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia all signed Minsk, but the treaty failed and the fighting resumed. On February 12, 2015, Minsk 2 was signed, but that failed, as well. Please, watch this short segment on You Tube by Amit Sengupta who gives a brief rundown of Minsk and its implications: (I transcribed the piece myself and any mistakes are mine.)
We just wonder if anyone in Washington realizes whet the fu** they’ve done?
www.zerohedge.com
On September 5, 2014, Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia all signed Minsk, but the treaty failed and the fighting resumed. On February 12, 2015, Minsk 2 was signed, but that failed, as well. Please, watch this short segment on You Tube by Amit Sengupta who gives a brief rundown of Minsk and its implications: (I transcribed the piece myself and any mistakes are mine.)
There’s no way to overstate the importance of the Minsk betrayal or the impact it’s going to have on the final settlement in Ukraine. When trust is lost, nations can only ensure their security through brute force. What that means is that Russia must expand its perimeter as far as is necessary to ensure that it will remain beyond the enemy’s range of fire. (Putin, Lavrov and Medvedev have already indicated that they plan to do just that.) Second, the new perimeter must be permanently fortified with combat troops and lethal weaponry that are kept on hairtrigger alert. When treaties become vehicles for political opportunism, then nations must accept a permanent state of war. This is the world that Merkel, Hollande, Poroshenko and the US created by opting to use ‘the cornerstone of international relations’ (Treaties) to advance their own narrow warmongering objectives.
We just wonder if anyone in Washington realizes whet the fu** they’ve done?
ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Read the above article from Zero Hedge, there are several points I have tried to make in this thread since the beginning, But haven't articulated them as well . The article is fact based, and can be backed up . As opposed to the view points and opinions Of this misinformation agent.
Although some of his view points are pretty good , they are just viewpoints. Intended to mislead the better educated people about the causes of the war.
spat
.950 JDJ
If the Russian invasion of Ukraine was justified to keep NATO troops off of Russia's border, then a NATO invasion would be justified now to keep Russian troops off of the NATO border.
You can't have it both ways.
My opinion is that an invasion of a sovereign country because you don't like who they are allying with is never justified outside of a decared war. This would include the bay of pigs in Cuba, but that was a long time ago.
Furthermore, Russia's excuse that they need a neutral buffer is ridiculous. What does that buy them ? They are so outmatched by NATO that the concept of them mounting a serious defense is laughable. They could demilizarize all of continental Europe and it would maybe buy them a week if NATO got aggressive. Ukraine wouldn't give them more than a few hours.
Imaging Guatamala claiming they were justified in invading Mexico because they needed a buffer against the US LOL.
The aim of the Minsk agreement was to end the fighting between the Ukrainian army and ethnic Russians in the Donbas region of Ukraine. It was the responsibility of the four participants in the treaty– Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine– to ensure that both sides followed the terms of the deal. But in December, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in an interview with a German magazine, that there was never any intention of implementing the deal, instead, the plan was to use the time to make Ukraine stronger in order to prepare for a war with Russia. So, clearly, from the very beginning, the United States intended to provoke a war with Russia.
On September 5, 2014, Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia all signed Minsk, but the treaty failed and the fighting resumed. On February 12, 2015, Minsk 2 was signed, but that failed, as well. Please, watch this short segment on You Tube by Amit Sengupta who gives a brief rundown of Minsk and its implications: (I transcribed the piece myself and any mistakes are mine.)
There’s no way to overstate the importance of the Minsk betrayal or the impact it’s going to have on the final settlement in Ukraine. When trust is lost, nations can only ensure their security through brute force. What that means is that Russia must expand its perimeter as far as is necessary to ensure that it will remain beyond the enemy’s range of fire. (Putin, Lavrov and Medvedev have already indicated that they plan to do just that.) Second, the new perimeter must be permanently fortified with combat troops and lethal weaponry that are kept on hairtrigger alert. When treaties become vehicles for political opportunism, then nations must accept a permanent state of war. This is the world that Merkel, Hollande, Poroshenko and the US created by opting to use ‘the cornerstone of international relations’ (Treaties) to advance their own narrow warmongering objectives.
We just wonder if anyone in Washington realizes whet the fu** they’ve done?
ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
It's obvious after reading this that very few people really know what the real facts are.
Here's a link to the original article, just for references sake...
Setting the Record Straight; Stuff You Should Know About Ukraine
I like the last line of the article...
"We just wonder if anyone in Washington realizes whet the fu** they’ve done?"
IMO if Ukraine had the nuclear stockpile of France or the UK they would have been the most powerful military in Europe. They have been fighting like the most battle hardened troops in Europe. They were much better equipped and trained than we realized.
I don't envision the rest of NATO (some not all) fighting with such resolve.
Russia is absolutely getting a bloody nose, but they are gaining very valuable modern warfare peer level combat experience.
The US and NATOs recent experience is fighting 3rd rate armies and goat fuckers with complete air and logistics superiority.
I might be an oddball in this thread because I genuinely feel and sympathize with the Ukrainian people. I do. However I also feel Russia is being demonized far more than they deserve to be. I feel they genuinely felt backed into a corner and I can't say that if my country wasn't in their shoes I wouldn't feel the exact same way. I try to make impartial fair judgements and what I see is the US and NATO have been covertly goading this war along and continually fanning the flames.
The US and NATO are essentially throwing money and munitions into Ukraine to weaken Russia but in reality it's only causing more suffering for the Ukrainian people because they are being decimated now, their cities in ruins and their economy will be in shambles. We are fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian. I am honestly to the point where if I am objectively looking at the situation fairly, Russia is entitled to and arguably should be shooting down NATO and US reconnaissance jets that are directly assisting Ukraine to kill Russians. Thats a very dangerous line we are walking.
I don't want ww3. But at the rate things are going we keep doubling down and are being pulled in by mission creep. It's almost like we are trying to get pulled into the war directly. That's sick. It's like we're trying to get Russia to shoot down one of our planes so we can get involved. Putin keeps telling us not to cross a red line and we keep sticking our toes over it each time. It's like a trespasser in your yard and you keep telling him not 1 step closer and he keeps coming, sooner or later you shoot him but who knows when that threshold is.
The world is not better off for this war. The east and west have decoupled, global commodities and supply chains are shot, there will be new alliances, the USD demise is likely accelerated etc...
And I keep asking myself is it worth it?
Was Russia even a threat to us? Seriously if Russia over ran Ukraine in 2 weeks as expected the majority of their country would still be in tact and life would more or less be back to normal. Maybe they would have established a peace agreement by now and Ukraine proper would still be Ukraine and the Donbas annexed into Russia. Likely hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians would still be alive and likely this conflict ends there. Now Russia probably can't stop. It's like of you're playing poker and you get pot committed you keep putting your chips in because now you can't afford to lose.
What the hell are we doing?
spat
.950 JDJ
We will quickly have air supremacy in any conflict for the reasonable future for the simple fact that there *are* no peer militaries for the US.
The only way to be more than a speed bump to the modern US military is politically or with an all out nuclear attack.
Russia is the only country with the capacity for such a nuclear attack even on paper. All the other nuclear powers have a limited number of warheads (and this includes China). Some of them could certainly cause a lot of damage, but the US would survive. Whoever launched such an attack would utterly cease to exist.
We spend almost as much on defense as *the rest of the world combined*. If we committed to a total war nobody could mount more than a token resistance.
Which is why China is wisely concentrating on weakening us from within by compromising out leadership. They can't hope to match us militarily anytime in the foreseeable future.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
I suppose it could. Do you think thats a great Idea? I feel the reason we are fighting a proxy war at all is to avoid doing just that.
tomorrow morning , NATO could begin bombing Russia with the reason that Putin is insane, to many dead civilians, the Russians are going to invade Europe, and we must act now to stop him and the fools will follow the piper to their deaths never knowing the real reasons.
What Im saying is, the west can justify a war on Russia tomorrow if they want to.
JaguarJaguarGolf
6.5 Creedmoor
Everything is good until the Russians take out an aircraft carrier and we have 5,000 dead Americans.
There is no rule book that says battle can only occur on the land/sea areas of Eurasia.
There is no rule book that says battle can only occur on the land/sea areas of Eurasia.
spat
.950 JDJ
I'm certainly not suggesting that.
I am saying that Russia's adventurism cannot be allowed to succeed.
For the same reason that it was a bad idea to let Germany have Austria a century ago.
Putin will not stop on his own. He would invade all of Europe if nobody ever counters him.
The longer we wait the harder it will be.
We missed the opportunity to stop this easily a decade and a half ago in Georgia. If we let him have Ukraine, they will stop for a whole. But if they are allowed to fully assimilate Ukraine they will eventually more than double their military might.
Do we really want to sacrifice everything that isn't NATO to him ?
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Not everyone sees it as adventurism, I sure dont. I believe your premise is flawed, so you interpret it through the lens of pure aggression . I dont see it that way.
What was the whole point of NATO? it was to ensure or help prevent a invasion of Europe by the Soviets. it succeeded. Well the Soviet union collapsed, 25 years ago. The US needed an enemy to justify its spending and putting money in their own pockets so they insisted Russia was an enemy. even though it wanted to join the EU and even NATO . The US never wanted peace, because peace means they lose money ,Luckily for them a war on terror was invented , whereby a crime done by non state groups can be used to justify an invasion of an entire country.
Thank God for 911 and the mideast wars or they would have lost a lot of money .
They are puppet masters , and this is theater. Its all about them. about power, money.
They have been pushing for this war with Russia for years, They have been arming and training them and building defenses for years , funded by NATO and the US .
Russia will not join the globalists and give up her sovereignty to foreign leaders they never voted for. Europe has. Look at the results with their open border policy's. thier economy, the war against Russia is pushed by the globalists , the same globalists that outsourced American industry to China and want Russia to be broken up into several countries, which is where the US is headed.
spat
.950 JDJ
The rhetoric used to justify the spending is irrelevant.
The point is NATO was never going to invade Russia, but if they did then there was nothing Russia could do besides launch a full nuclear strike anyway.
The idea that it would matter at all whether Ukriane joined NATO or not is ridiculous. The only thing a NATO Ukraine would change is that Russia wouldn't be able to invade them. It wouldn't change a timeline for a NATO attack on Russia by more than a few hours.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Again , your wrong. thats not the only thing that would change. You see things from only one perspective , like a I said.
What else do you think would change? How about US and NATO tanks on Russia's border? How about US airbases less than 400 airmiles from Moscow? How about US submarines and carriers in Odessa A former Russian city? How about anti missile systems on Russias border denying her a way to defend herself in case of a NATO attack? How about tactical Nukes less than 4 minutes to Moscow?
You have to look at the circumstances like you were in court, bias's dont matter. You have to be objective in order to be fair.
Just how would a Russian general view this? As a threat ? or nothing to worry about?
My enemy is not the Russian people, its the globalists. the people you support .
Not being able to see things through the eyes of others is a flaw. Your being misled by the same people that told you Covid was deadly disease and mandated global vaccinations. That Saddam Hussien was involved in 911. That he had WMDs that Iran was ever a threat to the US . Your too smart for that bullshit .
What we have is a criminal syndicate of global proportions. Not individuals .
now why do you think America has been depleting its reserves f munitions, phasing out vehicle platforms with so, to no replacements,
Why we're baiting other Countries into warfare, why billions in equipment was left in Agfhanistan, why new enlistments and re-enlistments are at an all time low.... The Military Industrial Complex and the Congresspeople it owns, that's why.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
I wonder what Ukraine looks like using Google Earth .
will all them shot up Tanks show up ?
Sat image date 9-26-20 LOL ..
will all them shot up Tanks show up ?
Sat image date 9-26-20 LOL ..
spat
.950 JDJ
None of that would matter.
What difference do you think it would make if NATO decided to attack Russia ?
You think anything would be different if they launched such an attack from Ukraine instead of Poland or Germany ?
The notion that Russia needs or could make any use whatsoever of a buffer zone like that is just silly.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
