1. #40606
    Extraordinary Member CaptainEurope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    5,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by babyblob View Post
    The sad thing no one will. There will be sanctions and all the world leaders will sit back and say "Oh no this is awful. Putin is evil and he threatens world peace." But they are not sending soldiers into a non NATO country to defend it. They are not going to risk World War 3 over Ukraine.
    Germany just threw overboard decades of non-involvement policies by not only allowing countries that bought weapons from Germany to ignore contract stipulations that forbid use for anything but defense of the buying country, but also sending German weapons currently held by the Bundeswehr directly to Ukraine.

  2. #40607
    Extraordinary Member CaptainEurope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    5,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thwhtGuardian View Post
    Eh, unless it were say France or Germany I think the song and dance would be the same if he picked to invade any other NATO country. No civilized countries want WWIII and Russia knows that and has decided to use that to its advantage. We can dock their allowance all we want and it won't do didly because they get their money from China, Saudi Arabia and UAE...who don't care one bit which countries Russia invades.
    No. That is not how NATO works. Putin invades a NATO country, the other members WILL get involved with their military.

  3. #40608
    Extraordinary Member CaptainEurope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    5,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeastieRunner View Post
    Excommunicate any and all Russians that support Putin.

    The time is now to be harsh on Putin.
    The Pope cannot excommunicate Russian Orthodox Christians. Only about 0.1% of Russians are Catholics.

  4. #40609
    Extraordinary Member CaptainEurope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    5,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thwhtGuardian View Post
    And you think Germany, France or the UK think differently?

    Please.

    The purpose of NATO was to bribe those smaller nations into not willingly joining the USSR and allowing them to gobble up all of mainland Europe. We gave them fancy new weapons, helped them build roads, modern hospitals and infrastructure and in return they pointed those shiny new weapons at Russia and say, "FU we like democracy!" and we said we'd totally have their backs if that didn't work out...but we never meant it.
    Your cynicism is notes. As is your ignorance about how NATO works.

  5. #40610
    Extraordinary Member CaptainEurope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    5,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    Several Republican nominees for President took strong stands against Russia.

    McCain criticized a president from his own party for being too trusting.

    https://www.bostonherald.com/2007/12...b-in-his-eyes/

    Romney was mocked by Obama and Biden for considering Russia the United States' top geopolitical foe.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/polit...ine/index.html

    Chris Silizza of the Washington Post had a piece about admitting that Romney was right.



    Democrats won the fight. Romney lost. Hawkishness against Russia was seen as a losing issue politically.
    One should also note the passage of time, and that Obama being very successful in the fight against ISIS and al Qaeda means that Putin moved back up the ladder of threats, especially after the invasion of Crimea. When Obama said it, Putin definitely was not the main threat to worry about.

  6. #40611
    Extraordinary Member CaptainEurope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    5,402

    Default

    We're seeing international journalists quit their jobs at RT (mostly out of morals, I am sure, not because the Rubels they get paid in turned into Monopoly money over night). Wondering if we will see ANY resignation at Foxnews?

  7. #40612
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainEurope View Post
    One should also note the passage of time, and that Obama being very successful in the fight against ISIS and al Qaeda means that Putin moved back up the ladder of threats, especially after the invasion of Crimea. When Obama said it, Putin definitely was not the main threat to worry about.
    Since it seems like some folks are confused or not actually recalling the exact details of what the man said...


  8. #40613
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,930

    Default

    Nine seconds in...

    Iran is the greatest national security threat that we face.
    Which doesn't really have anything to do with his having been proven correct about Russia as a geopolitical foe.

  9. #40614
    Extraordinary Member CaptainEurope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    5,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post
    What exactly is Putin's game here and why now??? Is it simply that he's trying to bring about the return of the former Soviet Union?
    A German psychologist on TV explained it as a man with a strong narcissistic personality disorder, turning into a cranky old man, feeling he is losing control and likely to do whatever he wants now, no matter the consequences.

  10. #40615
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    4,641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    It is very weird how Israel is singled out for blame by the rest of the world, given the human rights abuses elsewhere. It really only makes sense if someone thinks the Jewish faith is the correct one, and the Jewish people should be held to a higher standard than the rest of the world.

    I'm curious about how the scale operates. What's a 1? What's a 5? What's an 8?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    Israel is called out three times more by the United Nations than any other country. This only makes sense if you believe they should be held to a higher standard.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...-rest-of-world
    Quote Originally Posted by thwhtGuardian View Post
    If we're talking UN resolutions versus what the general person believes, then it makes sense that they have more resolutions passed against them. I mean, Israel presents itself as a modern western government so the hope is that if the UN brings it up they'll address it so it could lead to progress...whereas what does sanctioning Myanmar or North Korea get you? You're just talking to a brick wall there.
    I'm glad we at least agree on the others, but yes the Israel case is special for a few reasons. Firstly the West is responsible for rewriting the map of the Middle East and creating Israel as we know it (well, minus the land they've stolen in the decades since). We are the big brother who provides weapons, intelligence, support, nuclear capability (that again they went on to help an Apartheid South Africa, the clearest thing to a successor to the Nazis the world has seen, become too), and the general understanding that if all we've given them is not enough we'll step in to fight anyone who truly threatens them. If they're condemned in the UN we'll block it. All the while they exploit and subjugate a minority population and then declare themselves a Democracy and a holy land and viciously attack anyone who dares condemn them, including (perhaps especially) Israelis and non-Israeli Jews.

    They do these things like CCP and Russia and North Korea do, because they can. If we stopped enabling their worst behavior and let them stand on their own they might have to change their ways. It would probably be the best thing for them, and definitely for the Palestinians. The only real special thing about the situation is the amount of pushback you get for pointing out the obvious. Again, most of the other bad actors we agree on. Some of us just add Israel (and in many cases, our own country) to that list.

  11. #40616
    Astonishing Member Zelena's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    4,586

    Default

    Read on The Guardian:

    Andriy Zagorodnyuk, Ukraine’s former defence minister, says Belarus is about to declare war on Ukraine, writes Luke Harding in Lviv.
    Hum… media war or are we going, slowly but surely, to WWIII?
    “Strength is the lot of but a few privileged men; but austere perseverance, harsh and continuous, may be employed by the smallest of us and rarely fails of its purpose, for its silent power grows irresistibly greater with time.” Goethe

  12. #40617
    Extraordinary Member CaptainEurope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    5,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    8.


    10.


    11.

    Oh.
    This one goes to 11.

  13. #40618
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    19,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    The troops are a part of NATO, they are being sent to NATO countries in case they are needed and to help with refugees. There is no treaty between Ukraine and the US that would allow the US to enter Ukraine with a military force. Biden's hands are tied. If Putin decided to send troops into, say, Poland, then Biden can, under Article 5, allow the troops to react and defend Poland.

    If Ukraine makes it into NATO, then the situation changes.
    There isn't any formal treaty preventing the United States from entering Ukraine with a military force. The United States chooses not to, for understandable reasons (political consequences of dead American soldiers, the potential of escalation from a nuclear power, the simpler PR situation when Ukraine is invaded and fights back.)

    Article 5 means Biden's hands would be tied if a NATO member were attacked, and that he would have to respond. The idea is that this wouldn't get the pushback that making the decision to enter a war would ensure.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  14. #40619
    Braddock Isle JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    17,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelena View Post
    Read on The Guardian:


    Hum… media war or are we going, slowly but surely, to WWIII?
    Reports are coming in that Zelensky is agreeing to talk with Russia. Conflicting reports on where - one website is saying they'll be meeting in the Belarusian city of Gomel. But CNN is saying otherwise.

    Zelensky agrees to talk with Russia, but rejects Belarus as the meeting place
    https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news...2740b6231ec5cd

    “We’ve heard a lot of talk about a meeting between Ukraine and Russia that might end this war and bring the peace back to us. Quite often [Minsk] is mentioned as the place for these negotiations," Zelensky said in an address posted on the presidency website on Sunday morning.

    "The location was not chosen by [Ukraine] nor by [Belarus]. It was chosen by the Russian leadership."

    Belarus has played a key role in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Russian troops invaded through the Belarus border with support from Belarus' government, according to Ukrainian officials. The Biden administration has sanctioned nine Belarusian defense firms for their support of the invasion.

    Addressing Belarus directly, Zelensky said: “If there were no aggressive actions from your territory, we could talk in Minsk, your city. When you were neutral, we talked in Minsk. That’s why we’re not talking in Minsk now."
    Apparently Zelenskiy named Warsaw, Bratislava, Istanbul, Budapest or Baku as alternative venues.
    Last edited by JB; 02-27-2022 at 06:48 AM.
    "Danielle... I intend to do something rash and violent." - Betsy Braddock
    Krakoa, Arakko, and Otherworld forever!

  15. #40620
    Ultimate Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    14,403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jbenito View Post
    Reports are coming in that Zelensky is agreeing to talk with Russia. Conflicting reports on where - one website is saying they'll be meeting in the Belarusian city of Gomel. But CNN is saying otherwise.

    Zelensky agrees to talk with Russia, but rejects Belarus as the meeting place
    https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news...2740b6231ec5cd



    Apparently Zelenskiy named Warsaw, Bratislava, Istanbul, Budapest or Baku as alternative venues.
    It looks like they've agreed to a meeting place:

    https://www.ft.com/content/475838e4-...reType=nongift

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s office said he had reached an agreement during a phone call with Alexander Lukashenko, the self-declared leader of Belarus, that negotiators from Kyiv and Moscow would meet on the Ukrainian-Belarus border.

    The development marks the first possible sign of de-escalation in Russia’s full-blown invasion of Ukraine that is estimated to have claimed thousands of lives.

    “The politicians have agreed that the Ukrainian delegation will meet the Russian delegation without preconditions on the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, near the Pripyat river,” read a statement on Zelensky’s Facebook page on Sunday.

    “Alexander Lukashenko has taken responsibility for ensuring that all planes, helicopters and missiles stationed on Belarus territory remain on the ground during the Ukrainian delegation’s travel, talks and return,” the statement added.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •