re: History of US and NATO Lies and Provocations

Man y’all love some Mother Russia here.

If China is the true pacing threat, then the route to countering them goes through Russia.

Look at Russia’s alliance with China. They provide China oil, etc.

Russia must be countered first.

quote:

---

How many treaties/agreements did the Soviets honor?

---

Hell, they don't honor contracts with themselves. It's a corrupt culture and it's roots are in communism. Under the USSR only the leaders got rich. So, if you were a working man or in small business the only way you could have a nicer life is to steal or cheat. And they invented a lot of interesting ways to get away with it. When communism fell, that mindset did not go away.

You are absolutely correct with this, the hateful comments are not surprising, what is surprising is the volume of people that support our aggression and the disgusting grift

We need to just get the hell out of this conflict…

quote:

---

Believing that you can somehow impose your will on future generations of people who don't exist yet is silliness.

---

What?

1. The Monroe Doctrine vs. NATO Expansion

The Monroe Doctrine (1823) declared that any European interference in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a threat to U.S. security. It was used repeatedly to justify U.S. interventions throughout Latin America.

Cuba, 1962:

When the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles from Florida, the U.S. considered it an existential threat, despite Cuba being a sovereign nation with the right to choose its allies. The U.S. responded with a naval blockade and threatened full-scale war—not because of an attack, but because of a perceived shift in the balance of power near its border.

Hypocrisy: The U.S. claims it has the right to oppose adversarial military buildup in its hemisphere, but denies Russia a similar right regarding NATO activity along its own borders.

2. NATO Interoperability in Ukraine vs. “Defensive Posture”

The U.S. insists that military aid and joint exercises in Ukraine are not aggressive, even though:

They aim to integrate Ukraine into NATO standards,

Include live-fire drills simulating strikes on Russian targets,

Provide long-range weapons that could hit deep into Russian territory.

But if Russia had, say, placed nuclear-capable missile systems in Mexico or trained Mexican troops with live-fire drills simulating attacks on U.S. targets—would Washington label that a “non-provocative” action?

Hypocrisy: What’s “defensive” when done by the U.S. and NATO is labeled “aggressive” or “imperial” when done by rivals—even when the structure and implications are the same.

3. ABM Sites with Dual-Use Capability

The U.S. built Aegis Ashore anti-missile sites in Romania and Poland. While advertised as defensive, the systems can launch Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are offensive and nuclear-capable.

Even U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin admits:

“The system is designed to accept any missile into any cell... providing unparalleled flexibility.”

Yet the U.S. expects Russia to trust that these will never be used offensively—even in a crisis.

Hypocrisy: The U.S. would never accept similar installations by adversaries near its own borders under the same logic of “defensive intent.”

4. Selective Use of Sovereignty

Washington insists that Ukraine has a sovereign right to choose its alliances (e.g., NATO). But:

In 2002, the U.S. invaded Iraq under the claim of protecting U.S. security from potential threats—regardless of Iraqi sovereignty.

In 1983, the U.S. invaded Grenada partly because of the construction of an airstrip it feared could host Soviet military aircraft.

Hypocrisy: The U.S. invokes sovereignty when convenient, but ignores it when claiming security threats in regions far beyond its own borders.

quote:

---

Hypocrisy: The U.S. claims it has the right to oppose adversarial military buildup in its hemisphere, but denies Russia a similar right regarding NATO activity along its own borders.

---

That's not hypocrisy, that's state diplomatic balance.

quote:

---

Hypocrisy: What’s “defensive” when done by the U.S. and NATO is labeled “aggressive” or “imperial” when done by rivals—even when the structure and implications are the same.

---

Again they would if they could. China is buying ports next to the USA.
Russia happens to be extremely weak right now in everything but nukes.

quote:

---

Hypocrisy: The U.S. would never accept similar installations by adversaries near its own borders under the same logic of “defensive intent.”

---

Because we are strong, China though is trying to subborn Mexico and Pacific islands.

quote:

---

Hypocrisy: The U.S. invokes sovereignty when convenient, but ignores it when claiming security threats in regions far beyond its own borders.

---

My question though is why do you care?
Russia was doing this all the time during the cold war.
China is doing it now.

Do you think the USA should play nicer than China and Russia?
Do you think they are nicer than we are?

You sound exactly like the former Soviet- communist propagandists of the 1980’s. Exactly.

quote:

---

Every nation has the right to join whatever alliances they choose.

---

Would we allow Russian forces to set up shop in Mexico?

quote:

---

You can vote in taxes, programs like social security, medicare, etc., all you want today.

There are no guarantees that people 50 or 100 years from now won't scrap it all

---

I'm a little lost. What does that have to do with the section of my post that you quoted?