WAR! What is it good for?

Where in the sentence you quoted did I say Russia had the right to invade? In fact in another sentence, I said something like, Russia were far from blameless in this and yet you chose not to quote that. Seems you have selective reading ability.

 

The US is far from a good role model and would absolutely interfere in the sovereignty of other nations if it felt threatened.

Doesn't make what Putin is doing right though... And whereas not good for Russia, expanding NATO eastward has been good for countries in Eastern Europe too (the ones that managed to get in in time at least).

I understand Russia's worries, frustrations and anger in this scenario, but, I don't see anyone other than Russia as being in the wrong here... I also don't think this really is about NATO as much as it is securing a land bridge to Crimea. If this was about NATO status it's a weird time to take a stand.

 

I gave up on this discussion as soon as my point about Russia's ****ing ****e economy scaring off potential allies to the West, was ignored and people said "boo, booo!! USA poopy!!"

Living standards is what is driving people to the West, as it did during the cold war. We are just expecting them to be poor, miserable ****s because er, because because thats why. Because! Russia is right, we are bad, let them do as they please, because, er, because.

 

I don't think they're taking a stand just now. If you look at my post earlier today, they've had 80 - 100k troops there 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and so on (probably since 2014 tbf). And have been building up all sorts of land and sea armaments throughout that time.

And it seems that Russia is reacting to the statement by NATO General Secretary Stoltenberg in November where he stated Nuclear Weapons could be placed in those Eastern European NATO states if Germany removes them. Like I said before, if you're Russia that's provocation. So imo NATO expansion is a concern. I don't know enough about the land bridge but that may also be true. But I don't think one is instead of the other.

When you combine everything I've stated above, it feels like something is being engineered by the U.S. to bring this to a head.

 

I have to ask myself why is NATO and the Americans, taking a vested interest in the Ukraine, when the likes of China are accused of human rights abuses, when the likes of Afghanistan now have a humanitarian crisis under these same regimes, showing this vested interest.

My comment in the Ukraine being part of the USSR until I think about 1991, was made, because it demonstrates to me why NATO and the Americans are showing an interest, it's fook all to do with agreeing with the people of the Ukraine, some of which will be Russian, having independence, it's purely to do with geographical advantage, the same reasons Putin is using.

I hope for the likes of blue potato my point is clearer, and as before I stand by what I said, I don't agree with any of it.

 

I see no benefit to the US from getting Russia to invade Ukraine. The US does not "profit" from war as someone earlier in the thread suggested (can't remember who). At least not when it is literally giving equipment away. Selling goods to other nations... Sure... But there is no profit in giving another nation arms to defend itself with.

There's been no conflict yet and it's already cost Western countries billions of dollars in aid given to Ukraine.

The only potential benefit I can see for NATO or western countries is, non-affiliated countries may rush for membership if they see it as only way of preventing invasion.

 

Especially when the Ukrainian President himself is telling the U.S. to STFU and stop causing a panic, every few days.

We keep hearing politicians coming on TV, going on about how it's up to Ukraine how they deal with their security when it comes to NATO. So why are you speaking for them then? When, quite clearly what you're saying is not what they want or need.

You're right, they'll always pick a region that serves their interests. Nothing of interest perhaps with picking a scrap with China about Nepal or the Uighurs is there.

I think there's a compromise to be had here. I read earlier that the Ukraine may seek some bilateral agreement with the U.S. about defence or something and withdraw the need to join NATO. If that is something agreeable to all sides then fair enough.

 

Biden gives me serious cause for concern at times, and Boris is not far behind him - We all know what Boris is up to, it deflects from domestic affairs and he's fighting for his Premiership. As for Biden he has just left Afghanistan with a humanitarian crisis, albeit off the back of Trump. So what is Biden's interest here, well you know mate, you've said it all, and I want no part of it. Macron seems to want a peaceful solution, based on 6 hours of dialogue and the Germans have history here and sensibly are being reserved. IF Putin does go in, I'm not really sure what we can do other than sanctions, I have no problem with that, but if they want to start shooting missiles or even just bullets at one another, then that's just getting stupid.

 

Well sure, it's about geopolitical advantage. That's the whole point of NATO in the first place. NATO was created for the purpose of not letting Russia pick off small countries one at a time. Absolutely no doubt Ukraine offers an advantage to NATO and would be a boost for the organization... But it's also clear NATO membership would benefit Ukraine.

People in the Baltic region no doubt sleep a lot better than they did before NATO membership... And Ukraine would love to have all that force backing them. Russia has never invaded a NATO nation. Sucks for Russia, but NATO membership would be great for Ukraine... But yeah, they're not being offered membership for their benefit but for NATO's benefit...

Ukraine is a sovereign nation and should be allowed to follow the path they chose, even if Russia doesn't like it.

 

You've failed to mention the American take in all this I notice, but that's fine bro, I already know what Biden wants, and that's his share of the pie. In fact without Biden's thumbs up we'd be going no where near.

I'm out.

 

BTW... Prediction... Before the year ends, if the war happens: we'll be discussing the possibility of invasion of Moldova.

Putin has had his eyes on Moldova for a long time and I suspect sees it as unfinished business. If he has troops massed in South and Eastern Ukraine they're right on the border of Moldova and Moldova will be next... Plus has the pretext of ethnic Russians in Moldova again... And the whole worry of Moldova potentially joining EU and NATO and Russia sees Moldova as part of their historic extended empire.

 

Not a reelection year for Biden. If it were, I'd agree he benefits from it politically. Typically in a war year the Prez benefits but in the years after the war it causes a slump. A war in 2022 would mean defeat in 2024. Biden needs the war to occur in 2024 or late 2023 at the earliest if he wants it to help his reelection.

 

That's already pretty much done though, isn't it? The citizens have already been issued with Russian passports.

 

As i said previously all the Western nations have already said that they won't be taking military action just sanctions though trying to get the Germans in particular could be very difficult

 

When I say bringing it to a head, I mean calling them out either way. Russia is posturing to intimidate and get the west to back down. They are looking for a response from the west to show this.

Instead the U.S. goads them by continually shouting "they're going to invade", "they're going to invade" and ratcheting that up to a point where they bring it to a head... "imminent" and then even giving a date of the "16th Feb" ffs

So Russia haven't got the response they wanted, and instead are being put in a difficult corner. Either they invade at which point the U.S. say "Aha! See we said they were going to invade" and win the P.R. war and the support of the idiots who supported their tack, with the western world on their side and sanctions imposed. OR they call Russia's bluff. They don't invade and Putin as well as Russia look weak and are weakened in the region and in terms of their negotiating strength.

It's classic American brinkmanship. They have a history of it and are masters of it, the snide ****s

 

That is exactly the way Hitler operated between 1936 and 1939, freeing oppressed germans in occupied territories after the end of World War 1 and then ethnic cleansing when they reoccupied those territories

 

It looks like the US have got the Germans to do what they want. As far as I'm aware the Nord stream pipeline has got naff all to do with the Yanks yet it is them who is shouting that will be cut off if Russia invade Ukraine.

 

The two situations are very similar actually.

With regards to Ukraine. Ukraine is a sovereign country and free to join NATO even if it pisses off Russia.

With regards to Germany. Germany is a sovereign country and free to get energy from Russia even if it pisses off the US.

 

Yeah but why are the Americans shouting that Nord 2 will be stopped if Russia invade Ukraine? That's between Germany and Russia. Its got nothing to do with the US.

 

I hope i don't get called up.

Ive served my country already