Tulsi Gabbard Weighs In On Ukraine

[Mosinitis]

We can no longer justify our foreign policy in Eastern Europe. We can only spin it, like in saying if we won't control the world, someone else will. Spinning works in sleazy domestic elections, it's not convincing on International level as foreign policy justification.

Standing on historic Russian soil (hero-city of Odessa) and threatening Moscow, while scaring the world with Russian aggression is chutzpah on steroids.

 

[holdover]

Well Ill tell you what, If Russia does go into Ukraine, its going to be an eye opening experience to those in the west that think the Russian military is incompetent. SOme of the new stuff they have is superior to the west.

and those javelins they're getting are only going to help a little bit with no air cover.

 

[Mosinitis]

 

[holdover]

Always two sides to the story.

 

[spat]

The point is there is almost zero time to react. It poses a huge danger to Russia. BSLBM's launches are very noticeable and they have a very high trajectory which also makes them noticeable, they are no where near as fast in the launch phase. Global strike (supposedly) can hit any target on earth in less than an hour , speeds from mach 10-20+launched from 250 miles from the target , there is almost no warning before impact.

You dont have to be a supreme commander to see the threat here. If your trying to say there is nothing for Russia to worry about few hundred cruise missles 250 miles from Moscow Your flat out crazy.

I am saying that dead is dead.

Whether it's cruise missiles in Ukraine or SLBMs in the arctic, Moscow is toast if we decided to attack.

Sure, missiles im Ukraine is something to worry about, but it's not a qualititative difference to all the crap they need to worry about now.

Learning some gang bangers are moving in down the block is worrysome.

But if "the block" is a cell block that's already full of gang bangers, it's probably not going to change things.

 

[holdover]

Well you listen to what Putin said in the video above, and then tell me He isnt making any sense. Putin says it better than I can.

 

[holdover]

Mr Putin blames Nato's militarisation of former Soviet states, such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, since the end of the Cold War for the current crisis.

'We want to ensure Russian security and we will do what we think we need to do

Mr Putin wants the removal of British and other Nato troops from Baltic states and a legally binding guarantee Ukraine will not join the security alliance.

'Is it us who are putting missiles near the US borders? No, it's the US who came to our home with their missiles.

'Is it some excessive demand not to place any offensive systems near our home?

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined Nato in 1999, followed in 2004 by Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

In subsequent years, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia also joined, bringing Nato's membership to 30 nations.

Not one inch to the East,' they told us in the 90s,' he said.

'So what? They cheated, just brazenly tricked us! Five waves of NATO expansion and now already, please, the systems are appearing in Romania and Poland.'

Putin said that Washington's willingness to discuss Russia's security proposals to curb NATO's eastward expansion was 'positive'.

'There must not be any eastward NATO expansion... The ball is in their court. They need to provide us with some answer,' he said, but added: 'Overall we see a positive reaction.'

'US partners told us that they are ready to begin this discussion, these talks, at the very start of next year in Geneva,' Putin said, adding that representatives from both sides have been appointed.

 

[spat]

Mr Putin blames Nato's militarisation of former Soviet states, such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, since the end of the Cold War for the current crisis.

'We want to ensure Russian security and we will do what we think we need to do

Mr Putin wants the removal of British and other Nato troops from Baltic states and a legally binding guarantee Ukraine will not join the security alliance.

'Is it us who are putting missiles near the US borders? No, it's the US who came to our home with their missiles.

'Is it some excessive demand not to place any offensive systems near our home?

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined Nato in 1999, followed in 2004 by Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

In subsequent years, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia also joined, bringing Nato's membership to 30 nations.

Not one inch to the East,' they told us in the 90s,' he said.

'So what? They cheated, just brazenly tricked us! Five waves of NATO expansion and now already, please, the systems are appearing in Romania and Poland.'

Putin said that Washington's willingness to discuss Russia's security proposals to curb NATO's eastward expansion was 'positive'.

'There must not be any eastward NATO expansion... The ball is in their court. They need to provide us with some answer,' he said, but added: 'Overall we see a positive reaction.'

'US partners told us that they are ready to begin this discussion, these talks, at the very start of next year in Geneva,' Putin said, adding that representatives from both sides have been appointed.

NATO is no threat to anyone's current holdings.

It is a threat to further expansion.

NATO should just admit Ukraine now. Put an end to this.

Yep, Putin won't like it. Sucks to be him.

 

[Mosinitis]

NATO is no threat to anyone's current holdings.

NATO is the reason Yugoslavia is no longer on the map.

 

[GOPerfect]

Russia accuses Ukraine of an 'act of terrorism' over Molotov attack

The Kremlin said Friday that an attacker hurled a petrol bomb at the Russian consulate in the eastern Ukrainian city of Lviv, formally protesting and demanding apologies from Kiev.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[spat]

NATO is the reason Yugoslavia is no longer on the map.

The fact that Yugoslavia was several countries in a trench coat pretending to be a single country is the reason it is no more.

 

[Mosinitis]

The fact that Yugoslavia was several countries in a trench coat pretending to be a single country is the reason it is no more.

So are many countries in Europe.

 

[spat]

So are many countries in Europe.

And that's why a modern map of europe bears little resemblance to a 100 year old one.

If Russia takes Ukraine, it's likely the maps will go back into the old blender once again too.

 

[Mosinitis]

And that's why a modern map of europe bears little resemblance to a 100 year old one.

We pick and choose where we promote separatism and we promote it in a very aggressive manner. Russia sided with the Union during American civil war.

 

[DoOver]

We pick and choose where we promote separatism and we promote it in a very aggressive manner. Russia sided with the Union during American civil war.

Naturally, The North, The Union, The Republicans where defending OUR Union from The Democrats, The South, The Confederates that ATTACKED US to keep their slavery.

National Socialist Party-Nazi
Democratic Socialist Party-Democrats
Same=Same

 

[holdover]

NATO is no threat to anyone's current holdings.

It is a threat to further expansion.

NATO should just admit Ukraine now. Put an end to this.

Yep, Putin won't like it. Sucks to be him.

NATO is absolutely a threat to Russias current holdings if they allow Ukraine to join NATO

Putin wont like it sucks to be the Ukraine.

Your not being objective in your viewpoint. This isn't about my team their team, Its about right and wrong. We had an agreement with Russia and then rubbed their nose in it and stabbed them in the back. Just like we do to most countries . I cant get behind that.

 

[spat]

NATO is absolutely a threat to Russias current holdings if they allow Ukraine to join NATO

Putin wont like it sucks to be the Ukraine.

Your not being objective in your viewpoint. This isn't about my team their team, Its about right and wrong. We had an agreement with Russia and then rubbed their nose in it and stabbed them in the back. Just like we do to most countries . I cant get behind that.

Russia's current holdings are Russia.

Unless you think NATO is going to back a Ukranian invasion of Russia, it's not a threat.

The deal that's in jeopardy of being violated is the one where Russia agreed to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine.

 

[Mosinitis]

Russia is still a home of 100 plus ethnic groups and vulnerable to the same predatory tactics used by the West and NATO to destroy Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.

 

[spat]

Russia is still a home of 100 plus ethnic groups and wonorable to the same predatory tactics used by the West and NATO to destroy Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.

Sort of like what China is doing to the US ?

Russia is probably pushing the same buttons, they'd be foolish not to.

Geopolitics is a prison yard, not a cricket match. Participants do not play nice.

 

[holdover]

Russia's current holdings are Russia.

Unless you think NATO is going to back a Ukranian invasion of Russia, it's not a threat.

The deal that's in jeopardy of being violated is the one where Russia agreed to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine.

Right. but that doesn't eliminate an outside threat.


I dont think so, but in the event of a war Ukraine is the the front door to Russia and putting missiles and troops on their doorstep isnt going to comfort them a whole lot , especially after being lied to . You can appreciate the mistrust Im sure.


Fair point. But what was the purpose of annexing the Crimea? Why not take all of Ukraine? What was the gain?

Ukraine was going to allow a NATO friendly Port in the black sea, about ten yards from Russia. The Russians saw this an Unacceptable encroachment much the way the US would see Vancouver or Tijuana as a Chinese friendly base. The Russians were trying to prevent NATO exspansion without haveing to go to war with Ukraine.

Look at the "Johnson Doctrine," declaring that the United States would never again permit the establishment of a Communist regime in the Western Hemisphere. or the Truman doctrine , stopping the spread of communism around the world. The hypocrisy is self evident.

The tactics used by the US over the course of the last 75 years or so is weakening opposing powers by supporting and encouraging the break up of nations through revolutions based on religious, political social or ethic grounds, anywhere they can find a wedge. Yugoslavia, the Georgian republic. the Baltic states, Arab spring, the several attempted revolutions in Iran. The civil wars in Iraq and Syria and Ukraine The separation and independence of the Kurds, All backed by the US. and you see it here in the US today, the fracturing of people along every possible line imaginable .


Im going off on a rant here, but I can see this through the eyes of the Russians and I think they have a legitimate point.

 

[Mosinitis]

Sort of like what China is doing to the US ?

Russia is probably pushing the same buttons, they'd be foolish not to.

Geopolitics is a prison yard, not a cricket match. Participants do not play nice.

We exterminated or moved the indigenous people off their lands. Russians for the the most part just let them be. They still live on their ancestral lands. Russia is more vulnerable to separatism. This is not the case in this country.

 

[Mosinitis]

I would add Belarus to Holdover's list. Even when Belarus maintained neutrality in the Ukrainian conflict, still wasn't good enough and the West attempted to overthrow its leader. This failed and pushed Belarus into closer alliance with Russia.

 

[spat]

Right. but that doesn't eliminate an outside threat.


I dont think so, but in the event of a war Ukraine is the the front door to Russia and putting missiles and troops on their doorstep isnt going to comfort them a whole lot , especially after being lied to . You can appreciate the mistrust Im sure.


Fair point. But what was the purpose of annexing the Crimea? Why not take all of Ukraine? What was the gain?

Ukraine was going to allow a NATO friendly Port in the black sea, about ten yards from Russia. The Russians saw this an Unacceptable encroachment much the way the US would see Vancouver or Tijuana as a Chinese friendly base. The Russians were trying to prevent NATO exspansion without haveing to go to war with Ukraine.

Look at the "Johnson Doctrine," declaring that the United States would never again permit the establishment of a Communist regime in the Western Hemisphere. or the Truman doctrine , stopping the spread of communism around the world. The hypocrisy is self evident.

The tactics used by the US over the course of the last 75 years or so is weakening opposing powers by supporting and encouraging the break up of nations through revolutions based on religious, political social or ethic grounds, anywhere they can find a wedge. Yugoslavia, the Georgian republic. the Baltic states, Arab spring, the several attempted revolutions in Iran. The civil wars in Iraq and Syria and Ukraine The separation and independence of the Kurds, All backed by the US. and you see it here in the US today, the fracturing of people along every possible line imaginable .


Im going off on a rant here, but I can see this through the eyes of the Russians and I think they have a legitimate point.

I didn't say it wasn't a threat to Russia Interests.

I said it wasn't a threat to Russian holdings.

Your analogy is pretty good, but do you think we would invade Mexico or Canada if China was about to buy Tijuana or Toronto ?

Sure, we wouldn't be pleased, but I don't think anyone here would seriously consider military action to prevent it.

This isn't the 1960's.

 

[holdover]

I didn't say it wasn't a threat to Russia Interests.

I said it wasn't a threat to Russian holdings.

Your analogy is pretty good, but do you think we would invade Mexico or Canada if China was about to buy Tijuana or Toronto ?

Sure, we wouldn't be pleased, but I don't think anyone here would seriously consider military action to prevent it.

This isn't the 1960's.

Are you kidding me? Its a forgone conclusion, Maybe not Toronto, but any major port near the border.

Lets take a look at the alternative for a minute . The story our media and politicians are trying to sell is that Russia is a communist Authoritarian state bent on global domination and the sizing of Europe. That the sizing of the Crimea was a land grab from which to launch an invasion of Ukraine. That they interfered in our elections causing Donald Trump to win You really buy that crap? That after giving away all her satellite countries in her Bloc she now wants to get them all back plus Europe?

Or could it be that Russia which is highly nationalistic country , Does not want to join in the surrendering of of its sovereignty by joining the world government? Europe is well on its way , with its open borders , its currency in the Euro , and the allowing of immigrants from the third world to enter. The US is moving in the same direction with its open borders and North American trade agreements and eventually a new currency , but they have to destroy the dollar first.


If you ask me, there would be no threat to Ukraine right now if NATO troops /weapons weren't there. Thats what Putin is asking to avoid a conflict . We are not defending Ukraine, We are defending our position in Ukraine. We were attempting to gain position in the Black sea. There was little threat to Ukraine before NATO began its games there . I see NATO as the antagonist pushing its influence eastwards. why wouldnt the Russians expect uprisings in thier own country after Ukraine had become part of NATO? Once they have foothold on or near your border this always seems to be the case.

There is only two ways this ends, NATO pulls out or Russia moves in . . If NATO pulls out at least it has some influence left, and may be able to improve it in the future. If Russia moves in, NATO loses all influence in Ukraine. and much of it will be destroyed including her assets in country.

To me its a no-brainer for the West. better to keep what you have than lose it all. thats why I see the west bending to Russia , A war in the Ukraine doesn't benefit anyone. Russia has to strike before Ukraine joins NATO or it has to deal with NATO on her border forever.

If Russia was bent soley on the conquest of Ukraine, it has the means to do so already to strike on Ukraines Border, It doesnt need permission from anyone. They are negotiations now BECAUSE they don't want a conflict, They could have gone in weeks ago.

 

[spat]

Are you kidding me? Its a forgone conclusion, Maybe not Toronto, but any major port near the border.

Lets take a look at the alternative for a minute . The story our media and politicians are trying to sell is that Russia is a communist Authoritarian state bent on global domination and the sizing of Europe. That the sizing of the Crimea was a land grab from which to launch an invasion of Ukraine. That they interfered in our elections causing Donald Trump to win You really buy that crap? That after giving away all her satellite countries in her Bloc she now wants to get them all back plus Europe?

Or could it be that Russia which is highly nationalistic country , Does not want to join in the surrendering of of its sovereignty by joining the world government? Europe is well on its way , with its open borders , its currency in the Euro , and the allowing of immigrants from the third world to enter. The US is moving in the same direction with its open borders and North American trade agreements and eventually a new currency , but they have to destroy the dollar first.


If you ask me, there would be no threat to Ukraine right now if NATO troops /weapons weren't there. Thats what Putin is asking to avoid a conflict . We are not defending Ukraine, We are defending our position in Ukraine. We were attempting to gain position in the Black sea. There was little threat to Ukraine before NATO began its games there . I see NATO as the antagonist pushing its influence eastwards. why wouldnt the Russians expect uprisings in thier own country after Ukraine had become part of NATO? Once they have foothold on or near your border this always seems to be the case.

There is only two ways this ends, NATO pulls out or Russia moves in . . If NATO pulls out at least it has some influence left, and may be able to improve it in the future. If Russia moves in, NATO loses all influence in Ukraine. and much of it will be destroyed including her assets in country.

To me its a no-brainer for the West. better to keep what you have than lose it all. thats why I see the west bending to Russia , A war in the Ukraine doesn't benefit anyone. Russia has to strike before Ukraine joins NATO or it has to deal with NATO on her border forever.

If Russia was bent soley on the conquest of Ukraine, it has the means to do so already to strike on Ukraines Border, It doesnt need permission from anyone. They are negotiations now BECAUSE they don't want a conflict, They could have gone in weeks ago.

You think we would invade Canada ?

We're practically rolling out a welcome mat for an invasion through Mexico, and you think we would invade Canada if they got too chummy with China ?


How much friendlier do you think they *could* get ?

 

[JaguarJaguarGolf]

Old Soviet practice, in threat of war, was to target each American aircraft carrier with at least 90 nuclear weapons of various types. Pretty much guaranteed one was going to get through eventually.

I believe current Russian and Chinese doctrine to be the same. It is foolish to believe they would confine any conflict to areas around Ukraine or Taiwan.

5000 US souls per carrier. Maybe ten thousand per carrier strike group. Shock and awe.

The Soviets did not fear nuclear war with the US. Mutually Assured Destruction was US policy think tank BS. It was not Soviet doctrine. The Soviets bankrupted themselves building an extensive Civil Defense system for their people. In the US, an expensive sheltering system was only built for the elites. The Soviets even built shelters for their cattle. The Soviets expected 90% of their population to survive an all out nuclear war with the US. We expected 90% of the US population would not. The Soviet war plan was to send not just nuclear weapons of one type, but mix in air and ground bursts, and include massive amounts of biological and chemical weapons also. They planned to make North America uninhabitable for a thousand years. They were very angry they lost so many in WWII and the US population was not targeted.

For a dozen years I worked moving artwork into large expensive mansions on large properties throughout the Northeast, everyone of them had a bomb shelter. Some even had the old olive drab CD drums with the yellow printing. Cases of canned goods and crated artwork were stacked in the shelter. Many had what looked like armories.

That expensive Soviet built Civil Defense/sheltering system is still in existence. The Moscow subway system is the largest sheltering system in the world, dormitories, kitchens, cafeterias, surgeries. The military subway system runs beneath the civilian one. Every new Soviet apartment building had sheltering for 110% of the buildings occupants to account for visitors. They had annual drills once a year that everyone had to participate in. Each building had a CD Warden who could not be disobeyed.

 

[spat]

Old Soviet practice, in threat of war, was to target each American aircraft carrier with at least 90 nuclear weapons of various types. Pretty much guaranteed one was going to get through eventually.

I believe current Russian and Chinese doctrine to be the same. It is foolish to believe they would confine any conflict to areas around Ukraine or Taiwan.

5000 US souls per carrier. Maybe ten thousand per carrier strike group. Shock and awe.

The Soviets did not fear nuclear war with the US. Mutually Assured Destruction was US policy think tank BS. It was not Soviet doctrine. The Soviets bankrupted themselves building an extensive Civil Defense system for their people. In the US, an expensive sheltering system was only built for the elites. The Soviets even built shelters for their cattle. The Soviets expected 90% of their population to survive an all out nuclear war with the US. We expected 90% of the US population would not. The Soviet war plan was to send not just nuclear weapons of one type, but mix in air and ground bursts, and include massive amounts of biological and chemical weapons also. They planned to make North America uninhabitable for a thousand years. They were very angry they lost so many in WWII and the US population was not targeted.

For a dozen years I worked moving artwork into large expensive mansions on large properties throughout the Northeast, everyone of them had a bomb shelter. Some even had the old olive drab CD drums with the yellow printing. Cases of canned goods and crated artwork were stacked in the shelter. Many had what looked like armories.

That expensive Soviet built Civil Defense/sheltering system is still in existence. The Moscow subway system is the largest sheltering system in the world, dormitories, kitchens, cafeterias, surgeries. The military subway system runs beneath the civilian one. Every new Soviet apartment building had sheltering for 110% of the buildings occupants to account for visitors. They had annual drills once a year that everyone had to participate in. Each building had a CD Warden who could not be disobeyed.

That would be a disaster for them.

if 95% of your infrastructure is destroyed, the last thing you want to do is to keep 90% of your population around.

We could very well have come out on the willing end of that.

Lose all the urban deadweight instantly. Most of the rural self reliant population survives.

Meanwhile the Soviets save everyone only to have them all fighting over the meager resources that are left a year later.

 

[holdover]

You think we would invade Canada ?

If china was going to build or use naval bases there ? 100% without a doubt.

We're practically rolling out a welcome mat for an invasion through Mexico, and you think we would invade Canada if they got too chummy with China ? Yes. Matter of fact its stated policy under the Johnson doctrine

There are no Chinese bases in Mexico . and if there were they would be siezed by the US .

Theres no doubt that the Chinese are infiltrating across the border and that they pose a threat to the US , but for the moment they are acting as un armed civilians

 

[spat]

You think we would invade Canada ?

If china was going to build or use naval bases there ? 100% without a doubt.

We're practically rolling out a welcome mat for an invasion through Mexico, and you think we would invade Canada if they got too chummy with China ? Yes. Matter of fact its stated policy under the Johnson doctrine

There are no Chinese bases in Mexico . and if there were they would be siezed by the US .

Theres no doubt that the Chinese are infiltrating across the border and that they pose a threat to the US , but for the moment they are acting as un armed civilians

We are barely objecting when they seize US universities.

There is no way we would do anything more than a strongly worded letter about a Chinese naval base in Canada or Mexico.

With Brandon in charge, we'd probably help them build it.

 

[holdover]

I disagree.