Russian-Ukrainian-Polish Eternal Friendship Thread

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Stationing combat units in Ukraine is signal to Russia that you will do Barbarossa II. Guess how will they react.
That's Russian narrative of it. The problem with that is that this paranoid way of looking at military deployments of foreign nations is, from their part, extremely selective. Namely, if they do it, its reasonable. If some of their neighboring countries were to look at Russia in this way, they would call it crazy and delusional, while outright stating that Russia and its allies have the right to station their military forces wherever the fuck they want.
Because technically they do. But so does any other sovereign country, which Russia is not ok with though.
The overall problem is that Russia thinks all countries in Europe are sovereign, but some are entitled to be more sovereign than others (especially Russia), while others have a "coke light" version of sovereignty only (that's any country Russia considers its sphere of influence), hence, for example, Russia wants to have a say on whether these countries are allowed to join certain international organizations or do military exercises with certain other countries.
Long story short, they know exactly how war weary western electorates are, but it serves their narrative well to act as if they are dealing with Fallout America on crack instead and as such they are reasonable to demand USA and NATO give them some concessions just to prove that they have nothing to be paranoid about.
Even ignoring the risk of a nuclear war with Russia, why exactly are we sending American boys to die in Ukraine? This whole fiasco in Eastern Europe really needs to be looked at in that light too; why are we doing this and what are we supposed to gain from it?
If you don't like realpolitik or hegemon politics, one could say that this is also about honor.
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
Russia isn't getting healthier at all. They still have a population on the downfall. They have horrendous abortion and suicide rates.
Russia has many problems, but they are gradually getting better, especially compared to the disastrous 90's. It is natural that they would resist all attempts of foreign powers to return them to their times of woe.

The current US government is actually focused on China majority

And yet the USA keeps finding new and new ways to fuck with Russia, despite supposed focus on China. The only difference between handling of relations with Russia and China is that USA has lot less economic relations with Russia so it can afford to screw with it openly (with added bonus of hurting the EU), while it has to be a little more subtle with China, due to economic interdependence.

The problem with that is that this paranoid way of looking

It is and USA is doing their best to encourage such way of thinking, as they seek to undermine both Russia and EU, the 2014 coup d'etat in Ukraine being the best known example.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Fucking over Russia was and is the USA modus operandi ever since the USSR collapsed. The goal of the USA elites who want the conflict with Russia is to see you dead and broke, your children brainwashed and rape, and they are getting their way in USA, but Russia refused their dogma and therefore it must be broken. They want it to be a sundered shell of a country, from where they can get children to rape and other raw resources for cheap and the fact that the Russia is getting healthier instead, while refusing the shitlib dogma infuriates them. So they will continue to up the stakes, until either the USA collapses under the weight of wokeism, Russia is crushed or we have all out nuclear holocaust.

Also Ukraine is not an ally, it is a vassal.

???????????
Bush would everything he could to save soviets.All presidemts after him except Trump did what Russia wonted.
Biden agreed to NS2.And normally he would let Putin rape Ukraine,but,unfortunatelly,when Ukraine agreed to disarm their H bombs,USA among other countries,included Russia, quarantee Ukraine borders.

Putin never had such thing like credibliity so he could do whatever he like,but if USA let invade country they promised to defend ,they would lost whatever of their credibility remain.

P.S Poland do not promised Ukraine anything,and they keep showing us fuck building monuments of genociders from UPA who tortured polish children to death - so i hope,that we do nothing.We are not superpower anymore.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Because Ukraine is an ally and letting Russia roll over yhem is a sign to EVERYONE that has beef with someone that the US won't get invovled.
Causing world War 3 as our allies throw thier men at it.

Ukraine is no ally, the Europeans are not going to throw their men at and Russian rolling over a nation along its borders is no different than us with Cuba or Venezuela.

If you don't like realpolitik or hegemon politics, one could say that this is also about honor.

Getting into a fight with Russia over Ukraine has not a single ounce of realpolitik, and its hegemon politics of hubris that brings down an Empire. As for honor, fuck that; I don't want my kids to die in radioactive hell fire because dumbasses in Washington wanted to get into a dick waving contest before they fucked around and found out with the Russians. Defending Poland or something of the sort is one thing, there is a valid strategic interest there and we do have formal alliance agreements.

We have none of that with Ukraine and any sort of claims go out the door when you realize this is just like China placing troops in Mexico for Moscow. If the best you can throw at me is "for honor", congratulations, now you understand how a generation of Europeans went off to slaughter each other in 1914.
 
Last edited:

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
This might be only semi-on topic, but I have been pondering this for a while.

How good is the Russian soldier? As I understand it, he's a hell of a lot more professional than he was during the Chechnya war. His equipment isn't as good as American kit, but it functions and he knows how to kill with it. Same can be said for a lot of their equipment and kit.

I'm certainly not saying Russia has any hope of prevailing against the might of America. But I have a feeling many in the corridors of power are underestimating the capabilities of the Russian Army.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Ukraine is no ally, the Europeans are not going to throw their men at and Russian rolling over a nation along its borders is no different than us with Cuba or Venezuela.
If you like analogies, it would be closer to occupying Canada for getting too friendly with China.

Getting into a fight with Russia over Ukraine has not a single ounce of realpolitik, and its hegemon politics of hubris that brings down an Empire. As for honor, fuck that; I don't want my kids to die in radioactive hell fire because dumbasses in Washington wanted to get into a dick waving contest before they fucked around and found out with the Russians. Defending Poland or something of the sort is one thing, there is a valid strategic interest there and we do have formal alliance agreements.
If Russia gets its way by forcing you into a game of chicken, what reason do they have to not do the same thing next time they don't like the shape of their borders?
Does the technicality of formal alliance as opposed to security assurances change the calculation that much?
Russians don't want to die in radioactive hell any more than anyone else, for one it would be right next to their prime lands, and Ukraine is certainly not worth that much. But if they can get a free pass from the west just for the price of making a scary face, that's pretty cheap, a great deal.
The problem is that this will get them to start think - if they could get this merely for making a scary face, what else can they get for making a scary face next year? And the next, and the next, and the next...
If they can "reintegrate" Ukraine, then surely they will be allowed to do the same with Belarus. And then Moldavia. And then Georgia. And then perhaps the Baltics, because they are small, hard to defend, and have many Russians settled there. And that will turn NATO into a joke, and then sky is the limit.
Where will you draw the red line where the logic of "just some dickwaving contest in Europe, not worth the risk" doesn't apply to?

We have none of that with Ukraine and any sort of claims got out the door when you realize this is just like China placing troops in Mexico for Moscow. If the best you can throw at me is "for honor", congratulations, now you understand how a generation of Europeans went off to slaughter each other in 1914.
Well you're not trying to yoink half of Mexico either, if you did, Mexico probably would be interested, and there is a non-zero possibility China would say yes.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
If you like analogies, it would be closer to occupying Canada for getting too friendly with China.

Or blockading Cuba, supporting an invasion of it the year before and risking nuclear war over Soviet troops there, because that is exactly what we are doing.

f Russia gets its way by forcing you into a game of chicken, what reason do they have to not do the same thing next time they don't like the shape of their borders?
Does the technicality of formal alliance as opposed to security assurances change the calculation that much?
Russians don't want to die in radioactive hell any more than anyone else, for one it would be right next to their prime lands, and Ukraine is certainly not worth that much. But if they can get a free pass from the west just for the price of making a scary face, that's pretty cheap, a great deal.
The problem is that this will get them to start think - if they could get this merely for making a scary face, what else can they get for making a scary face next year? And the next, and the next, and the next...
If they can "reintegrate" Ukraine, then surely they will be allowed to do the same with Belarus. And then Moldavia. And then Georgia. And then perhaps the Baltics, because they are small, hard to defend, and have many Russians settled there. And that will turn NATO into a joke, and then sky is the limit.
Where will you draw the red line where the logic of "just some dickwaving contest in Europe, not worth the risk" doesn't apply to?

Yes, yes, please continue to tell how detached from reality you are and how bought into the 1914 style of thinking you subscribe too. In the mean time, let's actually review what the evidence and positions are:

Russia’s military buildup along the Ukrainian border is generating alarm in Washington, DC and other Western capitals. Fears that this time, the Kremlin’s actions will culminate in another war have prompted a hastily arranged video call on Ukraine between U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin, due to take place on December 7.​
So far, all of the Western anxiety and hand-wringing about the crisis seems to be clouding people’s ability to listen to what the Kremlin is actually saying. Until now, there has been surprisingly little Western acknowledgement that Russian President Vladimir Putin is being much blunter about what he wants in Ukraine and the lengths to which he is prepared to go to obtain it. In just a few days, Putin has said that he wants a deal to prevent Ukraine from ever joining NATO. He also wants a Western promise never to deploy NATO military infrastructure in Ukraine. Putin cited U.S. MK-41 missile launchers now in Romania to illustrate what he’s worried about: “I will repeat once again that the issue concerns the possible deployment in the territory of Ukraine of strike systems with the flight time of 7–10 minutes to Moscow, or 5 minutes in the case of hypersonic systems. Just imagine that.”​
Why is Putin, who sometimes keeps his cards close to the vest, being so specific? Seen from Moscow, it appears that the Kremlin’s key objective in the current crisis is not to inflict a humiliating defeat on Kyiv or to take on the unsavory job of occupying Ukraine. Rather it is aimed at persuading the West that Russia is prepared to start a full-scale war over Ukraine unless something is done about the existing and (in Putin’s eyes, at least) completely unacceptable state of affairs.​

Well you're not trying to yoink half of Mexico either, if you did, Mexico probably would be interested, and there is a non-zero possibility China would say yes.

Good thing there is no evidence the Russians are about to do the same to Ukraine either, unless we force them to. I'm always amazed how people can laugh off the Russiagate thing and admit the Iraq War was sold on false premises, but then can be turned into the same raving NeoCons of yesterday on things like this. Objectively stopping and thinking really does wonders to putting away insane ramblings like this, which do not have an ounce of evidence to support them.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
This might be only semi-on topic, but I have been pondering this for a while.

How good is the Russian soldier? As I understand it, he's a hell of a lot more professional than he was during the Chechnya war. His equipment isn't as good as American kit, but it functions and he knows how to kill with it. Same can be said for a lot of their equipment and kit.

I'm certainly not saying Russia has any hope of prevailing against the might of America. But I have a feeling many in the corridors of power are underestimating the capabilities of the Russian Army.



It's more or less a peer competitor in terms of quality, with some areas of very advanced technology; the S-400 and advantages in gun tube artillery are a major headache in Washington helping to shape current American modernization and procurement policies. Beyond that, though, the Russians have far shorter logistics to the battlefield and unlike the United States, they lack global commitments, which means they can put far more troops into the battlefield and faster too then we can.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Or blockading Cuba, supporting an invasion of it the year before and risking nuclear war over Soviet troops there, because that is exactly what we are doing.
Yes, it would be better optics if Germany and France did it instead, but they don't have the guts to do it without USA.

Good thing there is no evidence the Russians are about to do the same to Ukraine either, unless we force them to.
Oh but they already did. Crimea, Donbass, remember?

I'm always amazed how people can laugh off the Russiagate thing and admit the Iraq War was sold on false premises, but then can be turned into the same raving NeoCons of yesterday on things like this. Objectively stopping and thinking really does wonders to putting away insane ramblings like this, which do not have an ounce of evidence to support them.
Ok, so Russia demands guarantees that NATO will not ally with certain countries nor position certain weapon systems in these countries, due to Russia's extreme vulnerability if the latter would happen.
Why isn't Putin offering similar ones regarding Belarus, or better yet, Kaliningrad Enclave, which also has "danger close" position to eastern flank NATO countries?
Back to my earlier point, Russia acts as if it is entitled to a greater level of safety and control over its immediate neighborhood than other countries, and especially those who have the misfortune of being Russia's immediate neighborhood.
If USA had a truly gutsy leader, he would go:
"Ok, we promise Ukraine will never join NATO nor host NATO's strategic systems. However, due to the betrayal of Budapest Memorandum, we will sponsor Ukraine to acquire its very own nuclear deterrent again instead, just to keep you honest, and they won't need NATO then. How about that?"
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Yes, it would be better optics if Germany and France did it instead, but they don't have the guts to do it without USA.


Oh but they already did. Crimea, Donbass, remember?


Ok, so Russia demands guarantees that NATO will not ally with certain countries nor position certain weapon systems in these countries, due to Russia's extreme vulnerability if the latter would happen.
Why isn't Putin offering similar ones regarding Belarus, or better yet, Kaliningrad Enclave, which also has "danger close" position to eastern flank NATO countries?
Back to my earlier point, Russia acts as if it is entitled to a greater level of safety and control over its immediate neighborhood than other countries, and especially those who have the misfortune of being Russia's immediate neighborhood.
If USA had a truly gutsy leader, he would go:
"Ok, we promise Ukraine will never join NATO nor host NATO's strategic systems. However, due to the betrayal of Budapest Memorandum, we will sponsor Ukraine to acquire its very own nuclear deterrent again instead, just to keep you honest, and they won't need NATO then. How about that?"
France might be the only one able to, them and the UK.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Yes, it would be better optics if Germany and France did it instead, but they don't have the guts to do it without USA.

The fact that the powers in the region haven't done so should make you stop and realize how little relevancy this is for the United States.

Oh but they already did. Crimea, Donbass, remember?

I wasn't aware Ukraine consisted solely of Crimea, and I definitely wasn't aware the Russians annexed the Donbass. If you want to play these stupid games, remind me who Ukraine as a whole was aligned with prior to 2014 with the Euromaidan?

Ok, so Russia demands guarantees that NATO will not ally with certain countries nor position certain weapon systems in these countries, due to Russia's extreme vulnerability if the latter would happen.
Why isn't Putin offering similar ones regarding Belarus, or better yet, Kaliningrad Enclave, which also has "danger close" position to eastern flank NATO countries?

Because that's diplomacy for incompetents; if we're not offering, why should he? If you want to make such a deal about preventing Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus, which has been talked about but not actually done yet same as the US with Ukraine, then that's why you get to talking and offer such. Expecting Putin to bend over when he receives nothing in turn tells me you really don't understand realpolitik.

Back to my earlier point, Russia acts as if it is entitled to a greater level of safety and control over its immediate neighborhood than other countries, and especially those who have the misfortune of being Russia's immediate neighborhood.

Rather like the U.S. with Cuba, Venezuela and Central American when the Soviets/Russians/Chinese go poking around there, no? To claim this is to become a flagrant hypocrite.

If USA had a truly gutsy leader, he would go:
"Ok, we promise Ukraine will never join NATO nor host NATO's strategic systems. However, due to the betrayal of Budapest Memorandum, we will sponsor Ukraine to acquire its very own nuclear deterrent again instead, just to keep you honest, and they won't need NATO then. How about that?"

To which Russia replies the same with Iran or perhaps Cuba again or Venezuela? The U.S. in 1962 declared a blockade of Cuba, threatened an invasion and nuclear war with the Soviets over nuclear weapons in Cuba but somehow Moscow is supposed to accept literally the same thing in Ukraine today?
 
Last edited:

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
The fact that the powers in the region haven't done so should make you stop and realize how little relevancy this is for the United States.
Or how clumsy these powers are.
Of them all at least UK does something though.

I wasn't aware Ukraine consisted solely of Crimea, and I definitely wasn't aware the Russians annexed the Donbass.
Who sent troops, intel and weapons to Donbass separatists?

If you want to play these stupid games, remind me who Ukraine as a whole was aligned with prior to 2014 with the Euromaidan?
So? Once aligned with Russia, obliged to stay forever? Didn't know Russia is Hotel California.
Because that's diplomacy for incompetent; if we're not offering, why should he?
Because he supposedly wants a deal. But strangely enough, nothing is offered in return.
If you want to make such a deal about preventing Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus, which has been talked about but not actually done yet same as the US with Ukraine, then that's why you get to talk and offer such. Expecting Putin to bend over when he has nothing in turn tells me you really don't understand realpolitik.
So when Russia wants a concession from the west, it can demand one for a promise to not invade a random country for now, but when the west wants a concession from Russia, it should offer something in return?
Viking politics indeed.

Rather like the U.S. with Cuba, Venezuela and Central American when the Soviets/Russians/Chinese go poking around there, no? To claim this is to become a flagrant hypocrite.



To which Russia replies the same with Iran or perhaps Cuba or Venezuela again? The U.S. in 1962 declared a blockade of Cuba, threatened an invasion and nuclear war with the Soviets over nuclear weapons in Cuba but somehow Moscow is supposed to accept literally the same thing in Ukraine today?
>same thing
Funny how the guarantees Russia demands do not even mention nuclear weapons. Only NATO membership and Mk 41's in Romania, which Russia gets butthurt about because of theoretical possibility one could load them with tactical nuclear weapons, maybe. Which, if one wants to be a pain in the ass, can be suspected about any weapons like 155mm caliber artillery or bigger.

One thing that you are missing is that Soviets did in fact base conventional military forces in Cuba, and did so until the end of Cold War.
So why Russia won't allow 11k NATO troops without nuclear weapons to station in Ukraine? After all, somehow USA tolerated 11k Soviet troops in Cuba for decades.

Ukraine also isn't in the same situation as Iran regarding owning nuclear weapons. Because it already did, they had quite a bunch after Soviet Union fell. But willingly gave them away to Russia, in exchange of guarantees of sovereignty and territorial integrity from NATO countries and... Russia itself.
 
Last edited:

History Learner

Well-known member
Or how clumsy these powers are.
Of them all at least UK does something though.

I prefer the terms "sane and rational" because refusing to poke a nuclear power for no gain whatsoever makes sense, no?

Who sent troops, intel and weapons to Donbass separatists?

Who toppled the Ukraine government? Who is sending troops, intel and weapons to Ukraine now and for the past decade? Have some consistency.

So? Once aligned with Russia, obliged to stay forever? Didn't know Russia is Hotel California.

Crimea and Donbass are, however, obliged to stay with Ukraine forever? Again, have some consistency.

Because he supposedly wants a deal. But strangely enough, nothing is offered in return.

Those moves came in response to what the U.S. and NATO is doing first; why does the onus fall on the Russians? Can you show me proof Washington is even making moves for such in the first place? How exactly is Putin supposed to offer concessions if Washington hasn't provided the opportunity to haggle?

So when Russia wants a concession from the west, it can demand one for a promise to not invade a random country for now, but when the west wants a concession from Russia, it should offer something in return?
Viking politics indeed.

Either you're being obtuse on purpose or you literally don't understand what you just said.

The West grants concessions on Ukraine, Russia backs down from war; both sides traded something. That's the definition of international diplomacy and realpolitik, in that you horse trade. If the West wants something from Russia (a thing) outside of this, then yes, the expectation is to give the Russians something in return unless you're operating in the fantasy land of the Russians always being expected to give up things in return.

>same thing
Funny how the guarantees Russia demands do not even mention nuclear weapons. Only NATO membership and Mk 41's in Romania, which Russia gets butthurt about because of theoretical possibility one could load them with tactical nuclear weapons, maybe. Which, if one wants to be a pain in the ass, can be suspected about any weapons like 155mm caliber artillery or bigger.

So yes, it's pretty obvious at this point you literally have not been paying attention at all to what's going on. From the AP (December 1, 2021),
Russia warns NATO against moving nuclear weapons east:
Russia’s top diplomat warned NATO against redeploying U.S. atomic weapons to Eastern Europe if Germany refuses to keep hosting them, saying Wednesday that such a move would be irresponsible and provocative.​
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was responding to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s comment this month that the alliance would need to consider relocating nuclear weapons east if the new German government changes the country’s policy on nuclear sharing.​
Lavrov described Stoltenberg’s statement as “absolutely irresponsible” and “outrageous.”​
“It’s not just fanning confrontation. It’s an attempt to provoke a hot conflict,” the minister said, speaking to members of the upper house of Russia’s parliament.​
Relations between Russia and NATO sank to post-Cold War lows after Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and supported a separatist insurgency that started the same year in eastern Ukraine.​
Tensions escalated last month amid Ukrainian and Western concerns about a Russian troop buildup near Ukraine that raised fears that Moscow could invade its neighbor.​
The longtime leader of Belarus, President Alexander Lukashenko, said in a Tuesday interview that his country would be willing to host Russian nuclear weapons if NATO redeployed U.S. atomic bombs from Germany to Eastern Europe.​
Lavrov described Lukashenko’s offer as a “serious warning prompted by the reckless Western policy.”​

One thing that you are missing is that Soviets did in fact base conventional military forces in Cuba, and did so until the end of Cold War.
So why Russia won't allow 11k NATO troops without nuclear weapons to station in Ukraine? After all, somehow USA tolerated 11k Soviet troops in Cuba for decades.

Again, do you bother to read what you post or are you being obtuse on purpose? From your own source:

“We will soon begin discussions with the Cuban leadership about the withdrawal of the Soviet training brigade in Cuba,” Gorbachev told reporters at the Kremlin after meeting with Baker for more than two hours. He said he expects that the brigade will leave Cuba in the “near future.”​
Gorbachev said the Soviet Union has about 11,000 military personnel in Cuba. Other officials said the training brigade he mentioned included fewer than 3,000, or about one-fourth of the total.

It was not 11,000 nor was it even conventional forces; it was a 3,000 man training brigade in Cuba. The U.S. and NATO has been doing exactly that for awhile in Ukraine, and lately has started sending explicitly offensive weapons into the country, which reaches the Russian red line. When the Soviets were doing the same in Cuba in the 1960s with bombers and missiles, we responded with the blockade and threat of war; again, please have some consistency.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
I prefer the terms "sane and rational" because refusing to poke a nuclear power for no gain whatsoever makes sense, no?
Ah, so nuclear powers can do whatever the fuck they want against anyone else and not even other nuclear powers should interfere with that.
Great, that's a pretty hard argument for trashing every non proliferation treaty in existence.
Do you however want to live in that world?


Who toppled the Ukraine government? Who is sending troops, intel and weapons to Ukraine now and for the past decade? Have some consistency.
Ukrainian nationalists did.
Ukraine is a universally recognized sovereign state, Donbass isn't.
Crimea and Donbass are, however, obliged to stay with Ukraine forever? Again, have some consistency.
They aren't sovereign states.

Those moves came in response to what the U.S. and NATO is doing first; why does the onus fall on the Russians? Can you show me proof Washington is even making moves for such in the first place? How exactly is Putin supposed to offer concessions if Washington hasn't provided the opportunity to haggle?
What kind of silly argument is that? If Russia can make demands, it can also offer mutual deals, no need to wait for Washington to ask nicely for their side of the deal.


Either you're being obtuse on purpose or you literally don't understand what you just said.

The West grants concessions on Ukraine, Russia backs down from war; both sides traded something.
As i said, viking politics.
You give vikings an agreed upon amount of gold, and vikings back down from war. For this raiding season at least.

That's the definition of international diplomacy and realpolitik, in that you horse trade. If the West wants something from Russia (a thing) outside of this, then yes, the expectation is to give the Russians something in return unless you're operating in the fantasy land of the Russians always being expected to give up things in return.
Not invading countries is not a concession to be sold, its supposed to be the default.


So yes, it's pretty obvious at this point you literally have not been paying attention at all to what's going on. From the AP (December 1, 2021),
Russia warns NATO against moving nuclear weapons east:
Russia’s top diplomat warned NATO against redeploying U.S. atomic weapons to Eastern Europe if Germany refuses to keep hosting them, saying Wednesday that such a move would be irresponsible and provocative.​
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was responding to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s comment this month that the alliance would need to consider relocating nuclear weapons east if the new German government changes the country’s policy on nuclear sharing.​
Lavrov described Stoltenberg’s statement as “absolutely irresponsible” and “outrageous.”​
“It’s not just fanning confrontation. It’s an attempt to provoke a hot conflict,” the minister said, speaking to members of the upper house of Russia’s parliament.​
Relations between Russia and NATO sank to post-Cold War lows after Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and supported a separatist insurgency that started the same year in eastern Ukraine.​
Tensions escalated last month amid Ukrainian and Western concerns about a Russian troop buildup near Ukraine that raised fears that Moscow could invade its neighbor.​
The longtime leader of Belarus, President Alexander Lukashenko, said in a Tuesday interview that his country would be willing to host Russian nuclear weapons if NATO redeployed U.S. atomic bombs from Germany to Eastern Europe.​
Lavrov described Lukashenko’s offer as a “serious warning prompted by the reckless Western policy.”​
Ah, yes, the totally fair Russian supposition that Russia stationing nuclear weapons on NATO's borders is totally fine, while NATO stationing nuclear weapons on Russia's borders is outrageous and unacceptable.
Want to know the secret of why NATO is not caring that much about what Russia will station on Belarus?
Because they are already stationing it in Kaliningrad without the necessity of negotiating it with Luka.


Again, do you bother to read what you post or are you being obtuse on purpose? From your own source:

“We will soon begin discussions with the Cuban leadership about the withdrawal of the Soviet training brigade in Cuba,” Gorbachev told reporters at the Kremlin after meeting with Baker for more than two hours. He said he expects that the brigade will leave Cuba in the “near future.”​
Gorbachev said the Soviet Union has about 11,000 military personnel in Cuba. Other officials said the training brigade he mentioned included fewer than 3,000, or about one-fourth of the total.

It was not 11,000 nor was it even conventional forces; it was a 3,000 man training brigade in Cuba. The U.S. and NATO has been doing exactly that for awhile in Ukraine, and lately has started sending explicitly offensive weapons into the country, which reaches the Russian red line.
Funny how you automatically take the word of unspecified "other officials" over what Gorbachev, you know, the guy in charge, has said.
Yes, of course 11k troops is just a training brigade. Just like the ones who shot down US planes in Vietnam.

You want to bring weapons up? Every bloody weapon Cuba had then was Soviet.

When the Soviets were doing the same in Cuba in the 1960s with bombers and missiles, we responded with the blockade and threat of war; again, please have some consistency.
No, you are just making up baseless suppositions. It was specifically about nuclear weapons, not "bombers and missiles".

Another, more minor controversy arose in November 1978 when it came to light that the Soviet Union had provided Cuba with between 12 and 24 MiG-23 fighter-bombers seven months earlier. These were tactical aircraft, not strategic bombers, but they were capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
The review, completed in July, determined that there was what appeared to be a brigade-size contingent of Soviet combat troops on the island, one that was separate from the Soviet training mission that the United States had long known was there.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Ah, so nuclear powers can do whatever the fuck they want against anyone else and not even other nuclear powers should interfere with that.
Great, that's a pretty hard argument for trashing every non proliferation treaty in existence.
Do you however want to live in that world?

I already do, the problem here is that you've fully immersed yourself in Wonderland; that's why you're having to present a strawman argument here because I literally never said anything like that and we both know it.

I prefer the terms "sane and rational" because refusing to poke a nuclear power for no gain whatsoever makes sense, no?​

If it's in the strategic interest to engage with another nuclear power in conflict, sure, go at it but make damn sure the cost of not doing so outweighes or at least matches the risk of doing such an action. So far you have categorically failed to present any real case in this regard, other than arguing for the Domino Theory of the Cold War without any evidence to its basis here. Overall, I'm not even convinced you understand the basics of the situation, given in your last post you argued the Russians haven't warned against nuclear weapons in the region and all it took was doing a three second google search to find an AP article concerning this from six days ago.

Ukrainian nationalists did.
Ukraine is a universally recognized sovereign state, Donbass isn't.

They aren't sovereign states.

We both know you don't give a shit about that, so don't you pretend to now. Taiwan sure as shit isn't a "universally recognized sovereign state", and all it takes is a quick review of your post history to show you've never cared about that.

If few organizations and government employees in Japan were to boycott Taiwan over not surrendering to China and drag said organization's business decisions into it...
Do you think the government would just shrug at it?
The problem with that reasoning is that if China seizes Taiwan, history doesn't end.
If China seizes Taiwan and doesn't regret it, then this is going to be rock hard evidence that China has both the military and political power to seize any SEA country with equal or greater impunity, because they aren't even fortress islands like Taiwan.
They will know it, and the SEA countries will know it, and both will know that the other knows.
This would have major consequences to the politics of the whole region.

I have no doubt whatsoever you'll try to explain this away with some novelty take that makes about as much sense as the rest of the things you've posted here do, but we both know that's a lie, your point here is being advanced in bad faith because you don't actually believe in it, and you're a hypocrite on this point.

What kind of silly argument is that? If Russia can make demands, it can also offer mutual deals, no need to wait for Washington to ask nicely for their side of the deal.

In what universe is Russia required to advance Washington's interests for them? How diplomatic talks go is you state your demands, the other side states theirs and then you begin the negotiation process.

As i said, viking politics.
You give vikings an agreed upon amount of gold, and vikings back down from war. For this raiding season at least.

No, you just don't know how diplomacy works or you're acting in bad faith; can be either in this point, because I've already caught you in one. As part of resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis, the USSR got the USA to agree to not invade Cuba; is that viking politics or another case of you being uninformed on the issue and spouting off?

Not invading countries is not a concession to be sold, its supposed to be the default.

Condemn the Iraq Invasion right now, but we both know you won't because you're a hypocrite when it comes to applying international law fairly. For the Russians, it's supposed to be iron clad but then you let the U.S. weasel out of it. I'd tell you to have consistency, but it's clear that's a choice on your end not to at this point.

Ah, yes, the totally fair Russian supposition that Russia stationing nuclear weapons on NATO's borders is totally fine, while NATO stationing nuclear weapons on Russia's borders is outrageous and unacceptable.
Want to know the secret of why NATO is not caring that much about what Russia will station on Belarus?
Because they are already stationing it in Kaliningrad without the necessity of negotiating it with Luka.

We're not playing these games; cite it.

Funny how you automatically take the word of unspecified "other officials" over what Gorbachev, you know, the guy in charge, has said.
Yes, of course 11k troops is just a training brigade. Just like the ones who shot down US planes in Vietnam.

Funny you have problems with your own source, perhaps next time you should bother to read it first? While you're at it, how about you explain the relevancy of 1979 when your original source was talking about the situation in 1989; you can't actually debate anything with me here because you know I'm right, you have to constant goal post shift here.

This gets all the more hysterical when you actually read what you posted:

On Sept. 16, 1970, an American U-2 reconnaissance aircraft detected evidence that the Soviet Union was constructing a long-term naval facility at the Cuban port of Cienfuegos, one which could serve as a permanent base for Soviet ballistic missile submarines. U.S. officials in the Nixon administration raised objections with Moscow, stating that such a move would contravene the USSR’s commitment following the Cuban Missile Crisis to refrain from introducing offensive military forces into the Western Hemisphere.​
The Soviets, who denied that they were building such a base, ultimately withdrew the submarine tender and two support barges it had sent to Cienfuegos and for the most part the matter died down.​

Why, exactly like what is happening today with the roles reversed, no? The Soviets back then moved in combat troops and the capacity for nuclear weapons, the U.S. put pressure on them to remove them and the Soviets did. Now, the modern day is almost the exact mirror, just switch the roles and Cuba for Ukraine. But wait! That's not all:

Another, more minor controversy arose in November 1978 when it came to light that the Soviet Union had provided Cuba with between 12 and 24 MiG-23 fighter-bombers seven months earlier. These were tactical aircraft, not strategic bombers, but they were capable of carrying nuclear weapons.​
However, U.S. intelligence quickly determined that the Cuban MiG-23s were not nuclear capable. Officials in the Carter administration assured the public that there was no evidence of Soviet nuclear weapons being present in Cuba and that the MiGs were too few in number to pose a military threat to the United States.​

It's almost as if the U.S. just like the Russians can be concerned about nuclear capable assets! But wait, there's more!

What followed was a textbook example of a political crisis almost entirely devoid of substance. The presence of 2,000 to 3,000 Soviet combat troops in Cuba was unacceptable to many Washington leaders, both Republican and Democrat.​
Sen. Frank Church, a liberal Democrat from Idaho who served as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, immediately demanded the brigade’s removal. “The United States,” he said on Sept. 4, “cannot permit the Soviets to establish a military base on Cuban soil, nor can we allow Cuba to be used as a springboard for real or threatened Russian military intervention in the hemisphere.”​
Sen. Richard Stone of Florida echoed this sentiment, arguing that the brigade’s deployment violated the Monroe Doctrine. Howard Baker, the Republican leader in the Senate, stated that if the U.S. tolerated the presence of Soviet combat troops in Cuba, “we will in effect be letting the Soviet Union thumb their noses at us.”​
Ronald Reagan, preparing for his run for the presidency in 1980, said that the United States “should not have any further communications with the Soviet Union” until the troops were withdrawn.​

This the position of the Russians today with Ukraine, literally almost exactly with NATO and NATO troops being there. There is no fundamental difference whatsoever between the two positions at all, and to pretend there is entirely bad faith in origin.

You want to bring weapons up? Every bloody weapon Cuba had then was Soviet.

If that is to be taken as a negative, then explain to me why it's not equally a bad thing that the U.S. and NATO is increasingly arming Ukraine? Again, you no consistency and are an obvious hypocrite here.

No, you are just making up baseless suppositions. It was specifically about nuclear weapons, not "bombers and missiles".

Can you tell me in what universe 1962, which is what I was talking about, is actually 1979 which is the article you're citing here?
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
I already do, the problem here is that you've fully immersed yourself in Wonderland; that's why you're having to present a strawman argument here because I literally never said anything like that and we both know it.

I prefer the terms "sane and rational" because refusing to poke a nuclear power for no gain whatsoever makes sense, no?​

If it's in the strategic interest to engage with another nuclear power in conflict, sure, go at it but make damn sure the cost of not doing so outweighes or at least matches the risk of doing such an action. So far you have categorically failed to present any real case in this regard, other than arguing for the Domino Theory of the Cold War without any evidence to its basis here. Overall, I'm not even convinced you understand the basics of the situation, given in your last post you argued the Russians haven't warned against nuclear weapons in the region and all it took was doing a three second google search to find an AP article concerning this from six days ago.
>the region
Don't abuse vague terminology against me. There are countries in the region that belong to NATO already, and the possibility of deploying nuclear weapons to them was merely discussed, not decided, nevermind done. Even if it was, these countries aren't called Ukraine. Deploying nuclear weapons to Ukraine was never discussed.


We both know you don't give a shit about that, so don't you pretend to now. Taiwan sure as shit isn't a "universally recognized sovereign state", and all it takes is a quick review of your post history to show you've never cared about that.
No, just somewhat recognized, your point being? USA is not deploying nuclear weapons to Taiwan, and US is perfectly allowed to have separate diplomatic understandings with China and Russia, just like China is in no way bound to act according to any "fair play" mutually established between Russia and USA, which is something China takes full advantage of by the way.

I have no doubt whatsoever you'll try to explain this away with some novelty take that makes about as much sense as the rest of the things you've posted here do, but we both know that's a lie, your point here is being advanced in bad faith because you don't actually believe in it, and you're a hypocrite on this point.
See above.
Yes, i'm a heretic biased against communists. What can i do?

In what universe is Russia required to advance Washington's interests for them? How diplomatic talks go is you state your demands, the other side states theirs and then you begin the negotiation process.
NATO and EU want Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Russia wants Ukraine's sovereignty to be limited. So both sides know that Russia won't offer NATO what they want, as it conflicts with their own demand. Yet Russia isn't also offering a consolation prize either.

No, you just don't know how diplomacy works or you're acting in bad faith; can be either in this point, because I've already caught you in one. As part of resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis, the USSR got the USA to agree to not invade Cuba; is that viking politics or another case of you being uninformed on the issue and spouting off?
No, not invading Cuba was not the specific concession USA was asked for.

On Saturday, October 27, after much deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy's cabinet, Kennedy secretly agreed to remove all missiles set in Turkey and possibly southern Italy, the former on the border of the Soviet Union, in exchange for Khrushchev removing all missiles in Cuba.[126] There is some dispute as to whether removing the missiles from Italy was part of the secret agreement. Khrushchev wrote in his memoirs that it was, and when the crisis had ended McNamara gave the order to dismantle the missiles in both Italy and Turkey.[127]


Condemn the Iraq Invasion right now, but we both know you won't because you're a hypocrite when it comes to applying international law fairly. For the Russians, it's supposed to be iron clad but then you let the U.S. weasel out of it. I'd tell you to have consistency, but it's clear that's a choice on your end not to at this point.
Was Saddam invading Kuwait and gassing own citizens also ok with international law?
We're not playing these games; cite it.
Lol, if you want to counter that argument, then you have to say there is great concern, and that's something you would be expected to cite. Asking for citations about non-existence of something is just making you look ridiculous.

Funny you have problems with your own source, perhaps next time you should bother to read it first? While you're at it, how about you explain the relevancy of 1979 when your original source was talking about the situation in 1989; you can't actually debate anything with me here because you know I'm right, you have to constant goal post shift here.
I know you are left, not right, lol.

This gets all the more hysterical when you actually read what you posted:

On Sept. 16, 1970, an American U-2 reconnaissance aircraft detected evidence that the Soviet Union was constructing a long-term naval facility at the Cuban port of Cienfuegos, one which could serve as a permanent base for Soviet ballistic missile submarines. U.S. officials in the Nixon administration raised objections with Moscow, stating that such a move would contravene the USSR’s commitment following the Cuban Missile Crisis to refrain from introducing offensive military forces into the Western Hemisphere.​
The Soviets, who denied that they were building such a base, ultimately withdrew the submarine tender and two support barges it had sent to Cienfuegos and for the most part the matter died down.​

Why, exactly like what is happening today with the roles reversed, no? The Soviets back then moved in combat troops and the capacity for nuclear weapons, the U.S. put pressure on them to remove them and the Soviets did. Now, the modern day is almost the exact mirror, just switch the roles and Cuba for Ukraine. But wait! That's not all:
Now you are just making shit up. Cite sources where USA or NATO in general is planning to place nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Go on...

Another, more minor controversy arose in November 1978 when it came to light that the Soviet Union had provided Cuba with between 12 and 24 MiG-23 fighter-bombers seven months earlier. These were tactical aircraft, not strategic bombers, but they were capable of carrying nuclear weapons.​
However, U.S. intelligence quickly determined that the Cuban MiG-23s were not nuclear capable. Officials in the Carter administration assured the public that there was no evidence of Soviet nuclear weapons being present in Cuba and that the MiGs were too few in number to pose a military threat to the United States.​

It's almost as if the U.S. just like the Russians can be concerned about nuclear capable assets! But wait, there's more!
Yet Soviets did not help in assuring USA of their non-capability. Guess Russians should be angry at the low capabilities of their intel. Or they are just being assholes and saying they never can be sure just for the argument's sake.

This the position of the Russians today with Ukraine, literally almost exactly with NATO and NATO troops being there. There is no fundamental difference whatsoever between the two positions at all, and to pretend there is entirely bad faith in origin.
Yes, USA didn't like it. Despite that though, the troops stayed there until Soviet Union collapsed, to show which i've linked the 1989 article. So yeah, it is in fact the same situation - NATO should have troops in Ukraine, and Russia is free to whine about it.
If that is to be taken as a negative, then explain to me why it's not equally a bad thing that the U.S. and NATO is increasingly arming Ukraine? Again, you no consistency and are an obvious hypocrite here.
>increasingly
With what? Symbolic amounts of infantry anti tank weapons and some support equipment?
Russians sent more gear to separatists.

Can you tell me in what universe 1962, which is what I was talking about, is actually 1979 which is the article you're citing here?
Because even though Soviet Union backed down on nuclear weapons, and the crisis went away long time ago, the article being about 1979 shows that basing of conventional forces wasn't what USA cared about in 1962, as somehow they still were there in 1979.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
>the region
Don't abuse vague terminology against me. There are countries in the region that belong to NATO already, and the possibility of deploying nuclear weapons to them was merely discussed, not decided, nevermind done. Even if it was, these countries aren't called Ukraine. Deploying nuclear weapons to Ukraine was never discussed.



No, just somewhat recognized, your point being? USA is not deploying nuclear weapons to Taiwan, and US is perfectly allowed to have separate diplomatic understandings with China and Russia, just like China is in no way bound to act according to any "fair play" mutually established between Russia and USA, which is something China takes full advantage of by the way.


See above.
Yes, i'm a heretic biased against communists. What can i do?


NATO and EU want Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Russia wants Ukraine's sovereignty to be limited. So both sides know that Russia won't offer NATO what they want, as it conflicts with their own demand. Yet Russia isn't also offering a consolation prize either.


No, not invading Cuba was not the specific concession USA was asked for.





Was Saddam invading Kuwait and gassing own citizens also ok with international law?

Lol, if you want to counter that argument, then you have to say there is great concern, and that's something you would be expected to cite. Asking for citations about non-existence of something is just making you look ridiculous.


I know you are left, not right, lol.


Now you are just making shit up. Cite sources where USA or NATO in general is planning to place nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Go on...


Yet Soviets did not help in assuring USA of their non-capability. Guess Russians should be angry at the low capabilities of their intel. Or they are just being assholes and saying they never can be sure just for the argument's sake.


Yes, USA didn't like it. Despite that though, the troops stayed there until Soviet Union collapsed, to show which i've linked the 1989 article. So yeah, it is in fact the same situation - NATO should have troops in Ukraine, and Russia is free to whine about it.

>increasingly
With what? Symbolic amounts of infantry anti tank weapons and some support equipment?
Russians sent more gear to separatists.


Because even though Soviet Union backed down on nuclear weapons, and the crisis went away long time ago, the article being about 1979 shows that basing of conventional forces wasn't what USA cared about in 1962, as somehow they still were there in 1979.

In the interests of me not getting any further heated in debating this with you, agree to disagree because you're not worth getting a kick or ban over.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
There are no plans to put nuclear weapons in Ukrainie.
Didn't we move them out of Turkey in order for then to be removed from Cuba?
Why the fuck would we need them in Ukraine? Why not Romania? Poland? Latvia? Estonia? Lithuania?
Forgot Greece, which is where I thought the current nukes in Turkey had been shifted to, since Erdy has decided to go neo-Ottoman.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Forgot Greece, which is where I thought the current nukes in Turkey had been shifted to, since Erdy has decided to go neo-Ottoman.
Right right.
The point being, Why use a non NATO country when NATO countries are less likely to be invaded
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top