About war in Ukraine

[Binky001]

So you thought the ultimate goal of the NATO alliance was the expulsion of Russian forces from Ukraine ? Guess again.

There are many of our allies and some of the compliant press who believe the goal should be the partition and break up of Russia.
It is not just the break up of former Soviet satellite nations as the Atlantic recommends.
Decolonize Russia - The Atlantic

It was discussed at the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe at Helsinki .

Serious and controversial discussions are now underway about reckoning with Russia’s fundamental imperialism and the need to “decolonize” Russia for it to become a viable stakeholder in European security and stability.
Decolonizing Russia | CSCE


The 'Free Nations of Post -Russia Forum' have had 4 meetings in the last year;with a 5th planned for the end of January. planning for the break up of Russia.

Free Nations of Russia Forum - Wikipedia

At the 4th Forum, which took place in Sweden in December, the leaders of the nations of the post-Russian space signed a declarative but important symbolic act – “Memorandum on the termination of the Russian Federation.”

The 5th Forum of Free Nations of Post-Russia will be held in the European Parliament - Russia Vs World

Does anyone pretend to think that Russia is not aware of these discussions throughout the western world ? How could they possibly be enticed to the peace table knowing what the ultimate plan for Russia really is ?

[player1772]

Welp, it's pretty obvious where this situation is now heading. It was nice to have lived as long as I have.

[player1772]

When Joseph Biden was asked about how the US would respond to a nuclear attack, he said "we are ready." Who exactly is "we"? When a barrage of nuclear missiles strike the United States, who will be the most vulnerable? Will people like you and I be "ready"? The political elite and richest of Americans will have their private jets and underground bunkers waiting for them. The rest of us would be doomed. But according to Joseph Biden, "we are ready".

Tens of millions of Americans and Europeans will die. But it will be worth it, right?

[robinzig]

When Joseph Biden was asked about how the US would respond to a nuclear attack, he said "we are ready." Who exactly is "we"? When a barrage of nuclear missiles strike the United States, who will be the most vulnerable? Will people like you and I be "ready"? The political elite and richest of Americans will have their private jets and underground bunkers waiting for them. The rest of us would be doomed. But according to Joseph Biden, "we are ready".

Tens of millions of Americans and Europeans will die. But it will be worth it, right?

So will tens of millions of Russians, come to that. Do you really think Putin would do it? Sure we can't guarantee he won't, but for the past year he's been posturing about his nukes and nothing has come of it. We absolutely cannot allow bully-boys who are lucky enough to possess weapons of mass destruction invade and take over whatever countries they want by threatening nuclear consequences for those who stand up against the aggressor. It really is that simple.

[Bonehead001]

Are we witnessing the demise of the norm?

We absolutely cannot allow

Are you saying, "this means War!"? What do you mean 'We," do you have a mouse in your pocket?

[Bonehead001]

https://youtube.com/shorts/AyudJsZqDt8?feature=share

What length would you go to help somebody who's Crying out for help?

Cry out to the Lord [Jesus], he's ones only hope...Specially when digging a Foxhole (aka grave).

[player1772]

It's important to remember that liberal foreign policymakers put us in this mess in the first place. NATO's stance that Ukraine has "the right" to join whatever alliance it wants is not only ludicrous but also dangerous. That is not how the real world works. I can promise you that America would never tolerate a Russia - Mexico alliance, and would go to great lengths to make sure it is never successful.

[robinzig]

NATO's stance that Ukraine has "the right" to join whatever alliance it wants is not only ludicrous but also dangerous. That is not how the real world works.

What's "ludicrous" about a piece of absolute common sense? What good reason could there be - beyond Putin not liking it because he views Ukraine as a piece of Russia that should submit to him like all of actual Russia does thanks to the autocratic regime he's built up over 20+ years - for the West to not allow Ukraine to join if they wanted to and could prove they'd be a useful ally? Notice by the way that Putin has been trying to bring Ukraine under the thumb - via thinly-disguised proxies until 2022 - ever since 2014 when the Ukrainian people finally decided they'd had enough of corrupt leaders cosying up to Russia and stopping them looking at the far more successful countries to the West. In other words this is nothing whatsoever to do with NATO, and everything to do with Putin not wanting a successful democracy on his doorstep, let alone one with historically close links to Russia.

I can promise you that America would never tolerate a Russia - Mexico alliance, and would go to great lengths to make sure it is never successful.

America probably wouldn't like it if it happened, no. But at least in the world prior to 2022 (when Russia revealed itself as a full-on rogue state) they were unlikely to view it as some sort of existential threat. I don't doubt that in this situation there may have been all sorts of diplomatic manouvrings and US-Mexico relations taking a distinctly frosty turn. But are you really suggesting the US would send 200,000 troops into Mexico with the aim of taking over the whole country and incorporating it into the US? Even George W Bush wouldn't have dreamt of that, and if you really think that might have happened, I'll have some of what you're smoking please. (Not really!)


Also, let's not forget - Ukraine wasn't about to join NATO (it probably will soon if it survives this war, because there's nothing that sells the benefits of a defensive alliance like actually being invaded by a hostile and numerically much stronger neighbour - but there was no immediate prospect of this before that). So even if your analogy was a lot closer than it actually is, it still doesn't match the reality of the situation in Ukraine as of early 2022.

[player1772]

NATO's stance that Ukraine has "the right" to join whatever alliance it wants is not only ludicrous but also dangerous. That is not how the real world works.

What's "ludicrous" about a piece of absolute common sense? What good reason could there be - beyond Putin not liking it because he views Ukraine as a piece of Russia that should submit to him like all of actual Russia does thanks to the autocratic regime he's built up over 20+ years - for the West to not allow Ukraine to join if they wanted to and could prove they'd be a useful ally? Notice by the way that Putin has been trying to bring Ukraine under the thumb - via thinly-disguised proxies until 2022 - ever since 2014 when the Ukrainian people finally decided they'd had enough of corrupt leaders cosying up to Russia and stopping them looking at the far more successful countries to the West. In other words this is nothing whatsoever to do with NATO, and everything to do with Putin not wanting a successful democracy on his doorstep, let alone one with historically close links to Russia.

I agree with you that Russia is a autocratic regime that violates human rights. But that is besides the point I was trying to make with my statement. I had stated that any country claiming to have "the right" to do anything does not excuse them from any consequences that are likely to follow. World superpowers are not likely to tolerate shenanigans close to their borders. Russia, by choice, is not a democracy. And they do not want any foreign intervention in nearby countries that may pose a threat to their own way of living. If you cannot understand this basic principle, then I'm afraid I cannot educate you on this topic. As I had stated before, the USA will not tolerate any foreign intervention ANYWHERE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE.

America probably wouldn't like it if it happened, no. But at least in the world prior to 2022 (when Russia revealed itself as a full-on rogue state) they were unlikely to view it as some sort of existential threat. I don't doubt that in this situation there may have been all sorts of diplomatic manouvrings and US-Mexico relations taking a distinctly frosty turn. But are you really suggesting the US would send 200,000 troops into Mexico with the aim of taking over the whole country and incorporating it into the US? Even George W Bush wouldn't have dreamt of that, and if you really think that might have happened, I'll have some of what you're smoking please. (Not really!)


Also, let's not forget - Ukraine wasn't about to join NATO (it probably will soon if it survives this war, because there's nothing that sells the benefits of a defensive alliance like actually being invaded by a hostile and numerically much stronger neighbour - but there was no immediate prospect of this before that). So even if your analogy was a lot closer than it actually is, it still doesn't match the reality of the situation in Ukraine as of early 2022.

If Mexico had established a military alliance with Russia, meaning that Russian bases could be placed along the US-Mexican border, you can bet your bottom the USA would intervene militarily. That is assuming all other options to deter Mexico from doing this were unsuccessful. Do you really believe that the USA would not do this? Did you forget that the USA has something called the Monroe Doctrine? And no, I do not do drugs. I don't understand why that even needed to be brought up in this conversation. Please be respectful.

Again, you are very wrong regarding your statement about Ukraine and NATO. As stated by Wikipedia - "At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the MAP as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its future and foreign policy, of course without outside interference."

Please, at the very least do some research before you respond to my posts.

[robinzig]

This is going to be a brief reply. (Well not really, as it turned out - but I still could have made it a lot longer!) I feel I have to respond on some points - but please don't take the fact I haven't quoted a particular part of your post as implying any agreement or acceptance of it. I just don't have time to respond to everything.

If Mexico had established a military alliance with Russia, meaning that Russian bases could be placed along the US-Mexican border, you can bet your bottom the USA would intervene militarily. That is assuming all other options to deter Mexico from doing this were unsuccessful. Do you really believe that the USA would not do this? Did you forget that the USA has something called the Monroe Doctrine? And no, I do not do drugs. I don't understand why that even needed to be brought up in this conversation. Please be respectful.

Firstly, I apologise if I came across as disrespectful. Perhaps you are not aware of the idiom - my fault if so - but where I come from (the UK, and I assumed it was common in other English-speaking countries too) "I'll have some of what you're smoking" is just slang for "this is crazy talk". Yes it does obviously referenced unspecified drugs, but I absolutely did not mean to literally imply you were taking drugs and I am happy to clarify this since apparently it wasn't as obvious as I thought it was.

Anyway, to the substance: firstly, the "Monroe doctrine", according to Wikipedia, was in effect in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and was explicitly aimed at opposing European colonialism (which of course was exclusively practiced by Western European nations, at least at that time). I see in this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Do ... approaches that there are varying attitudes as to whether it is still valid in the 21st century, with some recent presidents and other US politicians (mostly if not exclusively Republican ones, it seems - ironic that they are phrasing it as wanting "a completely democratic hemisphere" when they are the ones trying to dismantle democracy in their own country in recent years, but I digress) - but others explicitly saying its era has ended. And I note that despite the posturings of various Republicans, the US has not to date, even under Republican administrations, intervened militarily in, say, Venezuela.

So I'm not sure what would happen in practice in the imaginary scenario where Mexico has a military alliance with Russia. If it led to actual Russian military equipment - missiles for example - inside Mexico, that may well lead to crisis territory and perhaps even some sort of military action to try to remove then, if diplomacy failed. I grant you that. But please note that "military intervention" takes many different forms. Again I ask - do you really think that the US, under *any* such scenario, would have simply invaded Mexico and aimed to incorporate it, or large regions of it in any case, into the US? (In fact the sham "annexations" of various regions of Ukraine is the clearest indication of all - although there are many - that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is pure imperialism, and nothing whatsoever to do with NATO.) Again, please note the very obvious differences here: one being that the US would very definitely exhaust all diplomatic options before resorting to military force, whereas Putin didn't even attempt to engage diplomatically in early 2022 when the West were making considerable efforts to avert the threatened invasion. And another that the US would only (at most) aim to remove the Russian military installations, which is very different from a naked land grab.

Again, you are very wrong regarding your statement about Ukraine and NATO. As stated by Wikipedia - "At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the MAP as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its future and foreign policy, of course without outside interference."

Again, I must apologise for not being clear enough what I meant. Yes, NATO had in principal accepted that Ukraine was free to choose to become a member and start moving towards membership. As your Wikipedia quote notes, that had first been established back in 2008 - 14 years before the invasion. What I meant to say was not that Ukraine would not ever have joined NATO, just that it was not immediately on the cards. Again, absolutely nothing had changed in the last few years with regard to Ukraine's prospects of joining NATO to make Russia decide to take action in 2022.

I am not sure why you keep attempting to justify a naked land grab by making it seem as if Putin has a valid point. Thankfully this forum is insignificant but such views, when amplified in other channels, go a long way towards muddying the waters and undermining the Western response. Which is exactly why Putin employs an army of trolls to spread such views throughout the West - I'm not accusing you of being such a troll (I genuinely believe you have thought about this independently and for some reason come to the wrong conclusions), but the effect is nevertheless similar.