- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Putin’s Invasion Had the Opposite Intended Effect - Russia Now Surrounded by NATO
Posted on 2/27/24 at 2:22 pm to Tantal
Posted on 2/27/24 at 2:22 pm to Tantal
quote:
The fact that it's been peaceful for the past 80 years is completely artificial and was created by Bretton Woods and NATO. Remove either of those two and Europe will devolve back to what it's always been....a war-torn shithole rivaling the Middle East
Which is my point exactly.
Putin wouldn't dare invade NATO.
But he continuously dares to invade neighboring countries outside of NATO.
The idea is that more countries involved with NATO would limit Putin's aggression. His own words admit that.
0
Posted on 2/27/24 at 2:40 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
quote:
Site your evidence.
It's been done numerous times here. First of all, perception is reality. Russia perceives a threat. There is basis for that belief.
Russia doesn't perceive a threat.
Russia needs an excuse to invade.
So they artificially manufacture those excuses (aka threats).
quote:
NATO rejected Russia joining the alliance 2 decades ago. That established a NATO-Russian adversarial status for the Russians.
NATO was established for the sole purpose of protecting countries from Russia invasion. It would be ironic to let in the country that does the invading so they could espionage their way through the organization.
Ironically, Russia doesn't mind their continued attempts to invade non-NATO nations (thus reinforcing the notion that NATO serves a purpose in the world).
quote:
NATO claims to be a defensive alliance, but as he puts it, nuclear bombers are not defensive weapons.
Posed with the question of American troops on the ground in Ukraine to help provide humanitarian aid, Putin put the threat of nuclear weapons on the table as a deterrence.
The question wasn't about the use of nukes in the war. It was about the presence of 3rd party humanitarian aid. And his knee jerk response (for whatever affect he intended) was nuclear weapons.
The presence of that response necessitates nuclear weapons. The best war is a cold war. I hate to put the Ukraine invasion on Biden. But when you permit Russia to build troops on the border with no repercussions, you (i.e. the USA) invited the invasion.
Without a balance of force, status quo will not remain in check.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 3:16 pm to meansonny
quote:Link?
Russia doesn't perceive a threat.
Of course Russia perceives a threat.
Russia has made that perception crystal clear for nearly two decades.
Russia has made a case for the perception.
It is the same case the US made in October 1962.
quote:Did the US artificially manufacture the Cuban excuses (aka threats)?
So they artificially manufacture those excuses (aka threats).
quote:False!
NATO was established for the sole purpose of protecting countries from Russia invasion.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 3:40 pm to Grigio
quote:
Yet for some reason the mighty US and its NATO allies plus $300 billion in weapons and cash can't seem to defeat this paper tiger?
I'm going to guess that it's because NATO and the U.S. haven't actually fought Russia. We've given Ukraine money and hardware, but that doesn't offset the 3:1 manpower advantage that Russia has. If we got involved, we WOULD drag our nuts all over Russia's army and Putin would have no choice but to either withdraw and risk NATO pressing the fight into Russia proper or throwing nukes.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 3:41 pm to Grigio
quote:
Has it ever occurred to you to ask why?
Air superiority. Didn’t want to risk Ukraine establishing air superiority and bringing a bombing campaign into Russia proper.
It’s been a degrade and destroy ground mission from day one.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 3:56 pm to RFK
NATO isn’t going to do schite other than let the U.S. fund a war that Ukraine cannot win. Pissing money away.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 6:16 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It is the same case the US made in October 1962.
quote:
Did the US artificially manufacture the Cuban excuses (aka threats)?
The cold war is over. The communists lost.
The US isn't afraid of a red wave any longer.
And your notion that we react the same way today is laughable.
Nukes are everywhere and continue to act as an omnipresent deterrence (northern and western russia as an example. Even in the Atlantic and Pacific).
If it matters to you, the US no longer flies nukes in the air 24/7.
quote:
quote:
NATO was established for the sole purpose of protecting countries from Russia invasion.
False!
Attacking one is the equivalent to attacking all. It was an alliance large enough to stand up to the soviet union.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 6:32 pm to meansonny
quote:
NATO rejected Russia joining the alliance 2 decades ago. That established a NATO-Russian adversarial status for the Russians.
Wrong. It was the other way around.Through "The Partnership for Peace" it was hoped Russia would either eventually come around and act like a normal country and join or at least have some kind of "Associate Status" but what stopped all that was "middle management" in the Russian military. Basically Colnels who had their own little fiedom's and were living the corruption high life and they knew if NATO auditors came, they would lose their jobs and maybe go to jail. So they did everything they could to make NATO look bad so as to not have to join it.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:02 pm to RFK
American and western values are going the way of the dinosaurs.
Enjoy the freedoms you still have today because it will be all gone sooner than later.
Enjoy the freedoms you still have today because it will be all gone sooner than later.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 10:29 pm to BayouBlitz
quote:
So 80 years of "artificial peace" doesn't count?
Wtf
It doesn't count when it's literally cost us trillions in defense spending and God knows how many more trillions by having to run a persistent trade deficit with Europe to maintain it. Exactly how much should our citizens have to pay to maintain peace thousands of miles away?
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:45 am to Eurocat
quote:Goodness.
NATO rejected Russia joining the alliance 2 decades ago. That established a NATO-Russian adversarial status for the Russians.
---
Wrong. It was the other way around.Through "The Partnership for Peace"
Is that the historical fantasy they're spraying across the pond?
In real terms, Clinton told Yeltsin NATO was expanding before the P4P was even rolled out. Russia was NEVER invited into NATO. Immediately after taking over, Putin asked on a couple of occasions. His requests were deflected, denied. It was an opportunity lost.
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:53 am to meansonny
quote:Wait!
And your notion that we react the same way today is laughable.
Your contention is that if Russia sent a bunch of nukes to Cuba, we'd be okay with it? Seriously?
You said
quote:Ironically, you also said:
NATO was established for the sole purpose of protecting countries from Russia invasion.
quote:The latter is true. The former is false. NATO was established as a deterrent vs the USSR. The USSR no longer exists.
The cold war is over. The communists lost.
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:55 am to RFK
quote:
a strong European security alliance
Surely you comprehend the U.S. underwriting the defense of Europe by printing money isnt a "strong security alliance"
Posted on 2/28/24 at 5:06 am to Eurocat
quote:
Wrong. It was the other way around.Through "The Partnership for Peace" it was hoped Russia would either eventually come around and act like a normal country and join or at least have some kind of "Associate Status" but what stopped all that was "middle management" in the Russian military. Basically Colnels who had their own little fiedom's and were living the corruption high life and they knew if NATO auditors came, they would lose their jobs and maybe go to jail. So they did everything they could to make NATO look bad so as to not have to join it.
None of this is relevant. This conflict is about the world banking system. Plot your data point if you must.
Posted on 2/28/24 at 6:03 am to loogaroo
quote:
Putin is making more money now than he ever has.
Same with zelensky.. isn’t that funny? What a complex
Posted on 2/28/24 at 6:07 am to RFK
How is "Russia Now Surrounded by NATO?" Can you even read a map?
Posted on 2/28/24 at 6:12 am to RFK
I still think Europe should pay for their own defense.
Posted on 2/28/24 at 6:14 am to Eurocat
quote:
knew if NATO auditors came
I’m waiting for the audit results of the US military. Hell, I’ll help them work on it if they need the extra hands. I’m very interested in seeing receipts out of Ukraine.
Posted on 2/28/24 at 6:17 am to RFK
quote:
For those who believe in a strong European security alliance, this is a good move and a historic week. I believe this will allow America and western values to prosper for years to come.
This is one hell of shiny hook post\
Posted on 2/28/24 at 6:18 am to Espritdescorps
quote:
Same with zelensky.. isn’t that funny? What a complex
The only people this war isn’t beneficial to are the soldiers and the American tax payers.
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News