Russian-Ukrainian-Polish Eternal Friendship Thread

[Marduk]

I think it's definitely possible that that fewer Ukrainians wanted to be in the EU than the 'official' poll's from the time suggest. Particularly when it comes to the citizens of eastern Ukraine.

Look at Ukraine's economy, and how "great" it did after couple decades of close relations with Russia.
Ukraine is not the UK, it would not go into the EU with the perspective of being a net payer yet not listened to in anything.

As well, given that Brexit happened and why, I'm not sure the EU is something sane people want to join.
I think Ukraine is/was a corruption ridden shithole, that has been been run roughshod over by it's neighbors (not just Russia, looking at you Poland, and of course the Mongol's ran through there back in the day as well), and that the US and West would have been better off not getting involved with Ukraine in the first place.

Better off in what? Letting Russia know that all neighboring countries that aren't in NATO yet are fair game, so get them quick while you still can?

They've gone bad and cost US civies, or dragged us into fights we had no need to be in, too many times.

Also, SK took the US civie ship building industry and plays a game with their northern neighbor to bilk aid out of US and China, and Taiwan tries to hold us hostage to their tech fab industry.

Welp, they have their interests too.
Still, if they didn't exist, you still wouldn'd dodge the other problems with China, and would have to deal with them while short 2 fortresses/unsinkable aircraft carriers.
Great strategic mind right there.

Both are situations where older gens could have killed the CCP in the crib, but chose not too, and the younger gens are paying for their mistake, and are being forced to abide the games both SK and Taiwan play in their hostage situations.

Now that's just hindsight abuse. You are proposing something even beyond what MacArthur wanted, and he was considered a crazy warmonger by his historical peers. And in his case that would be in alliance with South Korea, which you scoff at.

This isn't about a purity spiral, it's about how the Western narrtive around Ukraine ignores the Neo-Nazi issue and how corrupt Ukraine's govs have been, and the risks accosiated with possibly engageing actual Russian troops in combat if NATO forces enter Ukraine.

I call it a good start. Western narrative crafters have a long way to go in learning to ignore the "muh neonazis" more. Tiny little groups of them get so much attention.
Western narrative needs to care much more about commies and islamists, proportionally to how many there are.

I am someone able to look at a larger picture than the US MIC wants the public to look at, and acknowledge facts that are incovienent to the narrative of Western powers, because I was born after the Cold War ended, and do not automatically assume Russia never has any legit points or reasons.

So was I. There is a reason why Russia is so widely disliked among its direct western neighbor, its not just 1 or 2 countries with their odd beef, its vast majority of them. If they had so much legit reasoning, they wouldn't have such a low opinion among so many of their direct neighbors. Even Germany has a better one, and they had the fucking Nazis!

After all, the underlying point of NATO's eastward push is to put weapons closer and closer to Moscow, for first strike use, even if no NATO politician or military leader will admit it.

Again with the Kremlin line. What bloody weapons? Where? Where are the secret NATO first strike weapons in Latvia then? Just 600km to Moscow, as opposed to 500km from Ukraine.
If that was NATO's plan, who cares about Ukraine, should have been holding Moscow hostage with Latvia nukes since almost 2 decades.

 

[Bacle]

Look at Ukraine's economy, and how "great" it did after couple decades of close relations with Russia.

It's economy was and situaation was fucked before the USSR dissolved, for multiple reasons. One was because a egotistical middle manager blew up Chernobyl trying to get a promotion, and didn't know the failsafe/SCARM was not safe in certain situations.

Which is a legit beef it has with Russia (Do not mistake me for someone unwilling to call Russia on it's shit as well).

Ukraine is not the UK, it would not go into the EU with the perspective of being a net payer yet not listened to in anything.

You say that, yet you also go on and one about Ukraine's 'sovereignty'; what 'sovereignty would it have under the EU or NATO?

I'm not going to pretend the EU isn't interested in eroding the sovereignty of it's 'member' states.

There is a reason US military flights into Kiev on public flight tracker sights found C-17s going into Kiev, while routing around the direct route through Germany.

Germany is not interested in a fight with Russia, and France isn't in NATO because they are not really interested in containing Russia. Nord Stream 2 is but one of the reasons; jokes about Germans being sent to the Eastern Front as punishment persist because there is a deep aversion to fighting Russia in the modern Germany psyche, which as a Pole I'm sure you are well aware of but hesitant to admit exists.

Western Europe isn't really interested in fighting and dying for the Baltics or Balkans, and Ukraine is...it and Belarus hasve been the the historical invasion corridors into Russia from Western Europe (Napoleon and Hitler; Mongols came from a different direction).

Better off in what? Letting Russia know that all neighboring countries that aren't in NATO yet are fair game, so get them quick while you still can?

CSTO is a thing, and lets not pretend Russia didn't kinda want into NATO to begin with, but was not invited to join, because of the Cold War/hatred for Stalin.

Not saying it wasn't deserved, but the effects on the civies of both nation in the long term haven't been great. Ukraine has been fucked over by Western Europe multiple times historically, let's not pretend that Russia is the only one to have screwed them over badly, and thats before we fact the Mongols in; Ukraine use to be part of a Khanate, though many forget this.

Welp, they have their interests too.
Still, if they didn't exist, you still wouldn'd dodge the other problems with China, and would have to deal with them while short 2 fortresses/unsinkable aircraft carriers.
Great strategic mind right there.

I'm not someone who thinks that the US was virtous in the Cold War; I view the Cold War through a more MASH type lens, not a 'Heroic Anti-Commie Crusade'. Veitnam was France trying to drain US power by using NATO to force us to defend their attempt to keep a colony in SW Asia, after the same folks had not long before fought off the Imperial Japanese Army.

I get things are different in Poland; you guys have legit and very real reasons to fear Russia. That is why I also said withdrawing troops for Poland was unacceptable, and am happy the US gave you civie nuclear tech; being a player in the power industry is a great way to counter Russia, and Polish Nukes that could come out of it down the like/behind black ink...that is something I have no problem with.

Russia attempting to make a move on Poland, the Baltics, or attempting to push into the Balkans with military force is way, way beyond my red line.

Ukraine is a different story altogether, and I'm clear eyed enough to recognize that fact.

Now that's just hindsight abuse. You are proposing something even beyond what MacArthur wanted, and he was considered a crazy warmonger by his historical peers. And in his case that would be in alliance with South Korea, which you scoff at.

MacArthur would have killed the CCP in the crib, and resulted in a Unified Korea. Truman however was not willing to do that, and then put Shek/Nationalists into power on the mainland.

Yes, it would have required nukes, but at the time we had enough of a nuclear upper hand to be able to do that without fearing MAD from China or the USSR. But Truman wasn't willing to make that call, and MacArthur had a bit too much ego for his own good, even if he was proven right years after his death.

I call it a good start. Western narrative crafters have a long way to go in learning to ignore the "muh neonazis" more. Tiny little groups of them get so much attention.
Western narrative needs to care much more about commies and islamists, proportionally to how many there are.

Nazi's aren't a religion, Islam is; makes dealing with the Islamists (who I actually agree are a serious threat and agree with Poland's stance towards) harder in the US.

Like, Ilhan Omar pretty much committed visa fraud to become a US citizen, and yet she's in Congress as what amounts to the Muslim Brotherhood's mouth piece.

So was I. There is a reason why Russia is so widely disliked among its direct western neighbor, its not just 1 or 2 countries with their odd beef, its vast majority of them. If they had so much legit reasoning, they wouldn't have such a low opinion among so many of their direct neighbors. Even Germany has a better one, and they had the fucking Nazis!

I understand this, which is why I have said removing troops from Poland was unacceptable, and have no problem putting troops in the Baltics.

But those situations are not Ukraine.

Again with the Kremlin line. What bloody weapons? Where? Where are the secret NATO first strike weapons in Latvia then? Just 600km to Moscow, as opposed to 500km from Ukraine.
If that was NATO's plan, who cares about Ukraine, should have been holding Moscow hostage with Latvia nukes since almost 2 decades.

Remember when we tried to put US MRBMs in Turkey, and how that led to the Cuban Missile crisis.

AEGIS Ashore is in Romania, and the difference between a ABM interceptor and a conventional/nuclear first strike weapon is a matter of math and warhead selection. Unorformed NATO forces in Ukraine are an even more dire threat in Russian eyes, and I have no doubt that NATO leadership would like to have nukes/forces as close to Moscow as possible.

And the idea to bring Ukraine into NATO comes from 2008, so it is not a new worry for Russia either.

Though to be fair, I expect Russia also has place mole miner missile under the US continental shelf and they do have the Status-6 Tsar Bomba torps, so it's not like they could not wreck our day as much as we feel we can wreck theirs, if it came to MAD.

Which is part of why this fight in/over the Ukraine feels like the elite trying to get a WW3 to help their depop scheme'; they want Russia's nukes and weapons they'd unleash in the event of a direct NATO/Russia confrontation to help thin the herd. Same with why so many think a war over Taiwan is a good thing, on both sides. The people in power want to thin the herd, and war/nuclear war could do that quite well.

And to be blunt, I'd very much prefer to try to break the CCP's hold/partnership with Moscow, and get Russian troops aimed southeast, rather than West.

 

[Marduk]

It's economy was and situaation was fucked before the USSR dissolved, for multiple reasons. One was because a egotistical middle manager blew up Chernobyl trying to get a promotion, and didn't know the failsafe/SCARM was not safe in certain situations.

Which is a legit beef it has with Russia (Do not mistake me for someone unwilling to call Russia on it's shit as well).

No, when USSR dissolved Ukraine was one of richer parts of the USSR.

Economy of Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And that's just comparing Ukraine to Russia allied countries.
The real problem with Ukraine's economy is that it never recovered properly from the 90's collapse all ex-USSR countries had.

You say that, yet you also go on and one about Ukraine's 'sovereignty'; what 'sovereignty would it have under the EU or NATO?

For one sovereignty to elect governments that thumb their noses at all the silly ideas Brussels has, like Poland and Hungary do. It doesn't even get you a "brotherly aid" intervention from Germany, like it does with Russia (see: Belarus, Kazachstan).

There is a reason US military flights into Kiev on public flight tracker sights found C-17s going into Kiev, while routing around the direct route through Germany.

Germany is not interested in a fight with Russia, and France isn't in NATO because they are not really interested in containing Russia. Nord Stream 2 is but one of the reasons; jokes about Germans being sent to the Eastern Front as punishment persist because there is a deep aversion to fighting Russia in the modern Germany psyche, which as a Pole I'm sure you are well aware of but hesitant to admit exists.

Why do you kick out France form NATO?

Also its one thing to fight Russia, and another to volunteer to be on a gas politics leash held by Russia. Who the fuck forces them to have a gas-solar/wind energy mix. They can use coal like do now, or they can build NPPs if they want to care about muh CO2.
Conclusion being, its greed, idiocy, or KGB kompromat on their part.

Western Europe isn't really interested in fighting and dying for the Baltics or Balkans, and Ukraine is...it and Belarus hasve been the the historical invasion corridors into Russia from Western Europe (Napoleon and Hitler; Mongols came from a different direction).
CSTO is a thing, and lets not pretend Russia didn't kinda want into NATO to begin with, but was not invited to join, because of the Cold War/hatred for Stalin.

Excuses. If they want to hold that as a grudge, they shouldn't have taken every possible opportunity to make that look like a good decision in hindsight. NATO doesn't need a second Turkey but bigger, with nukes, more tanks, worse attitude and bigger power ambitions. Its not unreasonable to think that Russia's main objective in NATO would be to break NATO from the inside.

Not saying it wasn't deserved, but the effects on the civies of both nation in the long term haven't been great. Ukraine has been fucked over by Western Europe multiple times historically, let's not pretend that Russia is the only one to have screwed them over badly, and thats before we fact the Mongols in; Ukraine use to be part of a Khanate, though many forget this.

What did Western Europe do to Ukraine? Why aren't Ukrainians so angry about it?
Lucky for Ukraine, its not being threatened by Mohammedan nor Mongolian invasion, in fact both are kinda far away and not interested. However, there is the issue of Russians, who are in fact doing that, so naturally they focus on this.

I'm not someone who thinks that the US was virtous in the Cold War; I view the Cold War through a more MASH type lens, not a 'Heroic Anti-Commie Crusade'. Veitnam was France trying to drain US power by using NATO to force us to defend their attempt to keep a colony in SW Asia, after the same folks had not long before fought off the Imperial Japanese Army.

As you must know, now you have hindsight. And now we can safely say that decolonisation, as it went, wasn't such a great idea after all. We can't know if alternative options would have been better, and which ones, but we know that the lens of enthusiastic decolonisation are more political than realistic.

I get things are different in Poland; you guys have legit and very real reasons to fear Russia. That is why I also said withdrawing troops for Poland was unacceptable, and am happy the US gave you civie nuclear tech; being a player in the power industry is a great way to counter Russia, and Polish Nukes that could come out of it down the like/behind black ink...that is something I have no problem with.

Russia attempting to make a move on Poland, the Baltics, or attempting to push into the Balkans with military force is way, way beyond my red line.

Ukraine is a different story altogether, and I'm clear eyed enough to recognize that fact.
MacArthur would have killed the CCP in the crib, and resulted in a Unified Korea. Truman however was not willing to do that, and then put Shek/Nationalists into power on the mainland, and

How is Ukraine different? Its yet another country west of Russia that is thinking that perhaps they don't want to be Russia's satellite state anymore... While Russia responds that they aren't asking and there will be absolutely no discussion about it, but they can get a beating if they insist. For Poland, Baltics, Romania and some others, that story is close enough to their own.

Yes, it would have required nukes, but at the time we had enough of a nuclear upper hand to be able to do that without fearing MAD from China or the USSR. But Truman wasn't willing to make that call, and MacArthur had a bit too much ego for his own good, wvwn if he was proven right years after his death.

Questionable, the situation with delivery capable craft, bomb numbers and accuracy was questionable enough that they could likely run out of bombs before winning the war, especially if USSR joined.

Nazi's aren't a religion, Islam is; makes dealing with the Islamists (who I actually agree are a serious threat and agree with Poland's stance towards) harder in the US.

Like, Ilhan Omar pretty much committed visa fraud to become a US citizen, and yet she's in Congress as what amounts to the Muslim Brotherhood's mouth piece.

Blue and orange morality. Obsessing about Nazis and assuming a massive distinction between a religious and non-religious ideology is a sign of current ideological order of western countries. The rest of the world doesn't necessarily care. For Islamists themselves, it is as alien as the historical fundamental distinction between nobility and peasantry is to modern westerners.

Remember when we tried to put US MRBMs in Turkey, and how that led to the Cuban Missile crisis.

Different time, with real nuclear missiles, as opposed to imaginary, theoretical or proposed ones.

AEGIS Ashore is in Romania, and the difference between a ABM interceptor and a conventional/nuclear first strike weapon is a matter of math and warhead selection.

If we go into that level of what-ifs and conspiratorial thinking, the same can be said about long range SAMs, and you know how much Russians love their S series...
As i said, different times, different technology.

Unorformed NATO forces in Ukraine are an even more dire threat in Russian eyes, and I have no doubt that NATO leadership would like to have nukes/forces as close to Moscow as possible.

Back to my previous question then, why are there no NATO nukes in Latvia, Romania and Poland today? And i don't mean the symbolic nuclear sharing program B61s, i mean up to date SRBMs or stealthy cruise missiles.
Because it seems to me like Russia is punishing NATO for what it could theoretically do in the future, while NATO is not even anywhere near exploiting what it can do right now. Which would be so good that having Ukraine available would not improve much on it.
Every eastern flank NATO country that bothers to ask would be in NATO nuclear sharing program, which would be using a nuclear variant of JASSM instead of the B61, but IRL USA didn't even bother to develop one.

So in conclusion, its all bullshit excuses.
But sadly that's how diplomacy with KGB run Russia works. You show weakness, you make voluntary concessions, their logical conclusion is that this means you're weak and they should demand even more concessions while you're still weak. They respect nothing but strength, boldness and cunning.
Which is also why they get surprising amounts of respect in some fringe western movements.

Though to be fair, I expect Russia also has place mole miner missile under the US continental shelf and they do have the Status-6 Tsar Bomba torps, so it's not like they could not wreck our day as much as we feel we can wreck theirs, if it came to MAD.

Which is part of why this fight in/over the Ukraine feels like the elite trying to get a WW3 to help their depop scheme'; they want Russia's nukes and weapons they'd unleash in the event of a direct NATO/Russia confrontation to help thin the herd. Same with why so many think a war over Taiwan is a good thing, on both sides. The people in power want to thin the herd, and war/nuclear war could do that quite well.

Now that's some seriously eyebrow raising theory. Why go so far to do a nuclear herd thinning solely in countries that already have fertility rates more or less below 2? Why not get Africa, Middle East and South America nuked instead? That's where all the population growth happens these days.

And to be blunt, I'd very much prefer to try to break the CCP's hold/partnership with Moscow, and get Russian troops aimed southeast, rather than West.

The whole motivation before their alliance is such that they won't point their troops at each other as long as the West is something still worth paying attention to.

 

[Zachowon]

Backe you have no idea what goes on in the world.
SK doesn't make things worse with Norskies to beg for US Aid.
THEY WRE TRYING TO GET US OUT KF THERE!

 

[Zachowon]

Biden predicts Russia 'will move in' to Ukraine, but says 'minor incursion' may prompt discussion over consequences - NewsBreak

(CNN) — President Joe Biden on Wednesday predicted Russia "will move in" to Ukraine, citing existential concerns by the country's president, Vladimir Putin, even as he...

www.newsbreakapp.com

 

[Bacle]

 

[Zachowon]

I am down. Volunteer for front line duty

 

[Marduk]

Anti-war arguments based on cheap generic pacifist or isolationist ideas are so cringe. If you want to properly argue against a war, at least argue that there is a better way to achieve one's interests, counter the hostile country in question, argue that muh chemical weapon intel is not worth the paper its written on or doesn't matter anyway or so on.
Here, you can see both sides are doing silly basic politics.
Left: Call Russia ethno-nationalist to rile up their own.
Reality: Both countries in question are ethno-nationalist enough to trigger the average danger hair diversity studies graduate twice over.
>Greenwald being right wing
Hahaha no.
>NATO control
West hater or Russia simp detected, wtf is NATO control, NATO is not USSR with its "assuming direct control" moves.
If NATO had capital C control over countries, the first thing it would do would be to make Germany maintain 3% GDP military spending rather than less than half that, and make France triple its nuclear arsenal just for the hell of it.
Reminder that Russia still practices its "NATO paranoia excused imperialism" routine only because western commentators eat up this type of justification.
This is Tsar's Russia in 1600:

Long before NATO, nukes or USA existed, this is what central Europe looked like.
Note vast majority of modern Ukraine's territory not being Russia.

This is how far west Russia reached in slightly before USA was founded, around 1750. Which is not very far even by today's standard, but you can already notice that Russia's western regions grew larger for some reason. Why does it always have to be Russia who grows larger? There were no NATO nukes, NATO or American divisions in Europe, fear of which Russia could use to justify growing larger.
USA didn't even exist yet!

Europe in 1914:

Oh my, seems like Russia has expanded quite a lot to the west. But wait, its 1914, where are the NATO nukes, divisions and American bases? Oh, wait, there weren't any.
Europe in 1945:

Seems like Soviet Russia moved further to the west, and on top of that discovered the glory of satellite states! Reminder that nukes were only barely invented, and the NATO Russia is supposed to be so fearful of was not founded yet.

This is now, after NATO was founded and Soviet Russia collapsed:

As you can see, for once Russia is pushed back east. Almost back to the line of 1600's tsardom, with exception of Belarus and questionable status of Ukraine (lands it didn't have 4 centuries ago, most of them also 3 centuries ago, but did acquire over the last 2 centuries), and Kaliningrad enclave (something it didn't have even 100 years ago).
Overall, in territory that puts Russia on similar setup as it was around the time of USA's founding, with less Ukraine but more Belarus, and an enclave further in the west.

The big question is, when Russia is now crying when it being opposed in its ambition to expand its control to the west again, as it historically did, can you believe its excuses that it is just motivated by fear of being bullied by NATO stationing its powerful nuclear arsenals and divisions close to it in preparation for a surprise nuclear blitzkrieg (however unlikely that is), or perhaps there is a reasonable chance that it could be because of motivations similar to those Russia already had when it was expanding west over the last 4 centuries, when there were no NATO, US bases, nukes or ballistic missiles?

 

[Zachowon]

Anti-war arguments based on cheap generic pacifist or isolationist ideas are so cringe. If you want to properly argue against a war, at least argue that there is a better way to achieve one's interests, counter the hostile country in question, argue that muh chemical weapon intel is not worth the paper its written on or doesn't matter anyway or so on.
Here, you can see both sides are doing silly basic politics.
Left: Call Russia ethno-nationalist to rile up their own.
Reality: Both countries in question are ethno-nationalist enough to trigger the average danger hair diversity studies graduate twice over.
>Greenwald being right wing
Hahaha no.
>NATO control
West hater or Russia simp detected, wtf is NATO control, NATO is not USSR with its "assuming direct control" moves.
If NATO had capital C control over countries, the first thing it would do would be to make Germany maintain 3% GDP military spending rather than less than half that, and make France triple its nuclear arsenal just for the hell of it.
Reminder that Russia still practices its "NATO paranoia excused imperialism" routine only because western commentators eat up this type of justification.
This is Tsar's Russia in 1600:

Long before NATO, nukes or USA existed, this is what central Europe looked like.
Note vast majority of modern Ukraine's territory not being Russia.

This is how far west Russia reached in slightly before USA was founded, around 1750. Which is not very far even by today's standard, but you can already notice that Russia's western regions grew larger for some reason. Why does it always have to be Russia who grows larger? There were no NATO nukes, NATO or American divisions in Europe, fear of which Russia could use to justify growing larger.
USA didn't even exist yet!

Europe in 1914:

Oh my, seems like Russia has expanded quite a lot to the west. But wait, its 1914, where are the NATO nukes, divisions and American bases? Oh, wait, there weren't any.
Europe in 1945:

Seems like Soviet Russia moved further to the west, and on top of that discovered the glory of satellite states! Reminder that nukes were only barely invented, and the NATO Russia is supposed to be so fearful of was not founded yet.

This is now, after NATO was founded and Soviet Russia collapsed:

As you can see, for once Russia is pushed back east. Almost back to the line of 1600's tsardom, with exception of Belarus and questionable status of Ukraine (lands it didn't have 4 centuries ago, most of them also 3 centuries ago, but did acquire over the last 2 centuries), and Kaliningrad enclave (something it didn't have even 100 years ago).
Overall, in territory that puts Russia on similar setup as it was around the time of USA's founding, with less Ukraine but more Belarus, and an enclave further in the west.

The big question is, when Russia is now crying when it being opposed in its ambition to expand its control to the west again, as it historically did, can you believe its excuses that it is just motivated by fear of being bullied by NATO stationing its powerful nuclear arsenals and divisions close to it in preparation for a surprise nuclear blitzkrieg (however unlikely that is), or perhaps there is a reasonable chance that it could be because of motivations similar to those Russia already had when it was expanding west over the last 4 centuries, when there were no NATO, US bases, nukes or ballistic missiles?

Arnt Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia NATO countries? Why is Russia not asking for THOSE countries to leave NATO...if the whole NATO NUCLEAR BLITZKRIEG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because NATO will never be the aggressor. America has a no first strike policy for a reason

 

[Marduk]

Arnt Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia NATO countries? Why is Russia not asking for THOSE countries to leave NATO...if the whole NATO NUCLEAR BLITZKRIEG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because NATO will never be the aggressor. America has a no first strike policy for a reason

Be patient. As you can see from the maps, Russia sure is patient and just as determined to expand west as it is patient.

Russia issues list of demands it says must be met to lower tensions in Europe

Contentious security guarantees Moscow is seeking include a ban on Ukraine from entering Nato

www.theguardian.com

Russian diplomats know what salami tactics are.
For a start, Russia wants any NATO forces and weapons to be removed from Baltic States. And Balkan ones too. And Poland.

 

[Zachowon]

Be patient. As you can see from the maps, Russia sure is patient and just as determined to expand west as it is patient.

Russia issues list of demands it says must be met to lower tensions in Europe

Contentious security guarantees Moscow is seeking include a ban on Ukraine from entering Nato

www.theguardian.com

Russian diplomats know what salami tactics are.
For a start, Russia wants any NATO forces and weapons to be removed from Baltic States. And Balkan ones too. And Poland.

Like Poland will let NATO leave. Yall gonna hold us Hostage to keep us there because YOU KNOW Russia is going to take advantage of that

 

[Marduk]

Like Poland will let NATO leave. Yall gonna hold us Hostage to keep us there because YOU KNOW Russia is going to take advantage of that

I don't think the idea is for the countries in question to be asked if they want NATO forces to leave. The constant of Russian foreign policy is to use every opportunity to avoid including their opinions into decisions about their own fate.

 

[Zachowon]

I don't think the idea is for the countries in question to be asked if they want NATO forces to leave. The constant of Russian foreign policy is to use every opportunity to avoid including their opinions into decisions about their own fate.

Oh I know. I just know Poland would be HEAVILY adament on making sure your military is ready

 

[Bacle]

 

[Marduk]

Now you are just posting random twitter takes that just happen to agree with your conclusion but otherwise you probably wouldn't want to defend.

Serious question, what did the US think was going to happen when it was invading other countries around the world in the name of its own self-defense? Did the US not think other countries would learn from the ‘American model’ and apply to their own threat assessments?

I'm pretty absolutely 100% sure that countries were doing that for centuries, even millenia before USA existed.
Have you heard of the Melian dialogue?

leaving aside from the coup the US engineered in Ukraine -- the US props up the tyrants of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt.

More shitlib line of "we have to refuse alliances with all who don't have a spotless record of agreement on all controversial sociopolitical issues with current year us, even though these issues have very little to do with the serious military and economic matters these alliances are all about".

 

[Zachowon]

I laugh at this stuff.
War is going to happen.
Ukraine doesn't deserve to be under the rule of Russia, and PLENTY of Ukrainians are willing to die to prevent it. Perhaps the whole damn country.
Didn't we go and defend countries that may not be the cleanest, but still helped because the bad guys were worse? (USSR during ww2)

 

[Bacle]

Now you are just posting random twitter takes that just happen to agree with your conclusion but otherwise you probably wouldn't want to defend.


I'm pretty absolutely 100% sure that countries were doing that for centuries, even millenia before USA existed.
Have you heard of the Melian dialogue?


More shitlib line of "we have to refuse alliances with all who don't have a spotless record of agreement on all controversial sociopolitical issues with current year us, even though these issues have very little to do with the serious military and economic matters these alliances are all about".

I laugh at this stuff.
War is going to happen.
Ukraine doesn't deserve to be under the rule of Russia, and PLENTY of Ukrainians are willing to die to prevent it. Perhaps the whole damn country.
Didn't we go and defend countries that may not be the cleanest, but still helped because the bad guys were worse? (USSR during ww2)

The American public does not see it the way you two do, is tired of propping up tyrants, is tired of foreign military adventures, and remembers the way we were drawn into Iraq on the backs of multiple lies.

You two think the anti-war sentiment around Vietnam and Iraq was bad, Ukraine will be so much worse, because this time we would be directly risking MAD due to engaging Russian forces directly.

The American public, and much of the Western public in general, does not want war or to be sent to fight and die in foreign conflicts to play the elites games, and does not see this situation as worth fighting over.

Ignore those realities at your own peril.

 

[Marduk]

The American public does not see it the way you two do, is tired of propping up tyrants, is tired of foreign military adventures, and remembers the way we were drawn into Iraq on the backs of multiple lies.

The whole propaganda war is about American and any other public will see it.

You two think the anti-war sentiment around Vietnam and Iraq was bad, Ukraine will be so much worse, because this time we would be directly risking MAD due to engaging Russian forces directly.

Umm, hate to break it to you, but North Vietnam was supported by not one, but two communist nuclear powers. Both had their forces in Vietnam, in more or less covert manner, in amounts sufficient to become a meme.

USSR ‘secret' Vietnam soldiers speak out

Russian veterans have gathered to mark the anniversary of America’s withdrawal from the Vietnam War. More than 3,000 Soviet soldiers fought in the conflict despite years of government denials that they were ever involved.

www.rt.com

Vietnam War casualties - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

People's Republic of China

• 1,446 killed in action[112]

The American public, and much of the Western public in general, does not want war or to be sent to fight and die in foreign conflicts to play the elites games, and does not see this situation as worth fighting over.

Ignore those realities at your own peril.

If you think everyone already agrees with you, why do you scrape the bottom of the barrel so hard for arguments against it?

 

[Zachowon]

The American public does not see it the way you two do, is tired of propping up tyrants, is tired of foreign military adventures, and remembers the way we were drawn into Iraq on the backs of multiple lies.

You two think the anti-war sentiment around Vietnam and Iraq was bad, Ukraine will be so much worse, because this time we would be directly risking MAD due to engaging Russian forces directly.

The American public, and much of the Western public in general, does not want war or to be sent to fight and die in foreign conflicts to play the elites games, and does not see this situation as worth fighting over.

Ignore those realities at your own peril.

Bacle.
The public outcry will be worse if we dont help. Because you sre basically saying that the US should bow down to anyone who may give us a fight because there MAY be some public outcry?
You do know nukes will not fly?

Believe it or not, more of the public would rather not watch a country be invaded and not fight.

But if course, you would have thought Chamberlain had a good idea of trying to settle and that we should never have gotten invovled in WW2

 

[PsihoKekec]

Watching the media really reminds me 2003, however it's quite obvious that after decades of foreign wars people for the most part have enough of all this interventionist jingoism and really don't care about what is happening in the Ukraine.