Time is on the side of the Russians in Ukraine and the Chinese on pretty much anything else when it comes to confronting the US empire.
But ever since the ceasefire in Lebanon and the fall of Assad I can’t help but feel that the Palestinian cause is getting worse every day. No one is lifting a finger for them except the Yemenis and it only seems that the Zionist fucks are getting closer to their objectives.
Civil war in “Israel” when? True Promise 3 when (lol)?
It doesn’t help that some of the loudest voices cheering for Assad’s fall where Palestinians and that sectarism is strong against Shia’s…
Again, can you demonstrate that Russia has used more coercive tactics, chaos, disruptions, and corruption for geo-strategic advantage than the West has used since 1991? If you want to go back further than that, let’s include the much more sordid record of the US overthrowing governments left, right, and center around the world. The military dictatorships, the death squads, etc. The point I’m making is that the West, particularly the US since the end of WWII, is in no position to claim cleaner hands than Russia, and least of all use that claim to justify their actions as being more well-intentioned than Russia’s.
If countries next door to yours which are allied to a major historical foe (known for using underhanded tactics to manipulate and overthrow governments and for starting major wars) having missiles, including nuclear ones, pointed at you is not a threat, I’m not sure what you would consider a threat. For comparison, the US nearly completely lost its shit when tiny Cuba had a handful of Russian nukes located there. If you can’t see why Russia would be extremely concerned about a powerful, armed anti-Russia coalition immediately next door to them, I don’t think there’s much point in continuing the discussion.
Lol! So, it’s just a competition to you? As long as the US is bad, Russia can do whatever it wants? How does that justification not work both ways, then? It’s just a race to the bottom. All you’re really doing is arguing who’s worse, in order to give the other guy a pass.
You’re trying to twist my words into something they’re not. That part of the conversation was relating to your assertion that Russia was so threatening that it justified NATO expansion. I see that you also didn’t address the second part of my last post, about why Russia would feel existentially threatened by that same NATO expansion.
Ok, is it just that you don’t understand what “NATO expansion” means, then? It means another country wants to the benefits of being in a mutual defense agreement with most of Europe. It’s not an act of aggression. The protection provided by Article 5 of the agreement is a deterrent against being attacked…it does not protect anyone if they are the aggressor.
When the US invaded Iraq, the rest of NATO was under no obligation to join them, and in fact most NATO members chose to stay out of it.
As for not answering your second part…I didn’t think it was necessary since I already did in my previous comment. No one is “pointing missiles” at Russia. Even now, there is no talk of invading Russia. There is no plan to act against Russia, in any way. NATO is content to simply supply weapons to Ukraine so that it can hold its own territory, and wait for Russia to get tired of fighting. Not one NATO member has suggested escalation.
How is that interpreted as aggression? Isn’t it far more likely that that is simply an excuse to justify Russia stealing land from their neighbors? The US used the flimsy excuse that Saddam had WMD’s. Russia uses the excuse that NATO is a threat. None of it was ever true.
From NATO’s own mouth:
Despite their claims that NATO had/has any purposes other than as a Soviet deterrent, that was its main purpose and as such it should have been dissolved or fundamentally restructured after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But no, it continued on and now its main role continues to be as an anti-Russia alliance.
Fact Sheet: U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe - maybe the nuclear missiles aren’t pointed at Russia and ready to be launched at the press of a button, but do you think that the US keeps over 100 nuclear weapons (by 2021) in 5 European countries for anything other than to use it against Russia at short notice?
It seems that you just can’t see things from Russia’s perspective. I ask again, how would the US react if Mexico had Russian-controlled nuclear weapons based there and Canada started moving to join the same “defensive” alliance? This is not whataboutism, but to illustrate that NATO is understandably seen by Russia as a major threat to their national security. Does their perspective not matter?
Ummm…you do know the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore, right?
And seriously…your question about nuclear weapons proximity is completely absurd. It’s like your perspective is locked in the 1950’s. You know that both the US and Britain have nuclear submarines regularly patrolling the Baltic Sea? They have the capability to nuke Moscow within an hour of being given the order to fire. And Russia has their own nuclear submarines I’m the Atlantic that can do the same to Washington.
Acting like there is any relevance to where a nuclear weapon is stationed, with today’s weapons technology, is probably the most obviously transparent bullshit excuse that anyone could possibly come up with. The WMD story the US used for invading Iraq has more credibility…and only total rubes bought into it.
Yes, I’ve mentioned multiple times in this thread including in the discussion with you that the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. NATO should’ve rightfully been dissolved a short time after that.
You keep moving around and not addressing my questions. Let me simplify it: would you feel threatened by an adversarial nation from a different continent across an ocean placing a bunch of nuclear weapons in a country neighboring yours? Yes or no?
Lol! Man, you’re also the one that just posted that opposing the Soviet Union wasn’t the only purpose for NATO. It was also to help stabilize European politics, and unify the member states. At its core, it’s just a defensive alliance. There doesn’t have to be a specific enemy to defend against.
Currently, the US is threatening to annex territory from Denmark. That would trigger Article 5. If they decide to invade Canada…that would also trigger Article 5. If China decides to lay claim to Canada’s Northern coastline…that would trigger Article 5.
There are so many potential threats in the world, that having a defensive alliance simply makes every member nation safer. This is why so many countries have applied to join. It isn’t some sinister plan by NATO to intimidate Russia. As I said before…no one actually wants to fight Russia. Russia is just using the “threat” of NATO as a boogeyman, in order to justify their own imperialist agenda. It’s a tactic as old as time. You want to start some shit? Invent a bad guy, and pretend like what you’re doing is to defend yourself against that strawman.
And to answer your ridiculous question…again. No. It wouldn’t matter if someone right next door had nuclear capabilities. Both Russia and the US can potentially launch nukes at anyone in the entire Northern hemisphere. They’ve had that capability for decades now. It doesn’t matter if those missiles are on the far side of the planet, or right next door. It is hopelessly naive to think that distance matters. The nuclear deterrent is still the same.
The fact that you keep asking that question, like it’s some kind of “gotcha”, just tells me you don’t really understand how any of this works. This kind of logic is so archaic that it’s amazing that Russia still uses it to try and scare people. Because make no mistake…that is Russian propaganda you’re repeating. It’s pure fear mongering. Nothing more.
The first and primary reason for NATO existing: “deterring Soviet expansionism”. Distance makes a lot of difference. 30 minutes for a missile from the US to reach Russia. 2-3 minutes for one from Europe to reach them. That’s enough of a difference for people to get into bunkers or not. You are being disingenuous in not admitting that bringing nuclear weapons across an ocean and placing them next door will be perceived as very threatening, regardless of whatever explanations are given. Think about how asymmetric that power is too. The US reaches Russia in 2-3 minutes with their nuclear weapons, while it would take Russia 30 minutes to do the same. It means Russia would effectively be largely wiped out before they would have a chance to return fire to the US.
Since you’re just not willing to admit that such “defensive” moves can feel very threatening to another country despite evidence and logic, there’s no point in discussing further.