Fair points. I think what distinguishes Ukraine is how many people chose to stay despite overwhelming odds. I think that bodes well.Redbrickbear said:You don't think the Irish loved their country?sombear said:They'll return for the same reason millions have been willing to fight from the start despite what many predicted would result in swift defeat . . . they love their country.Redbrickbear said:You sure about that.whiterock said:The war will not last for ever.Sam Lowry said:Not during the war, if ever.whiterock said:95% of that red part of the demographic chart is easily recoverable.Redbrickbear said:Bleak, they really are "fighting to the last Ukrainian" https://t.co/1jODgGmJWH
— Chairman (@LRH_Superfan) April 2, 2023
Most in NATO countries will return.
Whether the millions Russia has deported to remote locations within the Russian Federation will be returned or not will depend up on the terms of the peace settlement.
Why would millions of Ukrainians return to a country that is war torn, poor, and corrupt...when by the time the war ends they will have jobs, homes, and a future in Central and Western European countries?
At the very least no one can claim its a 100% certain these millions of Ukrainians will ever move home.
You don't think Italians loved their country?
Or that Syrians loved their country?
Be it war (or poor economic conditions) once mass migration/immigration takes place its very unlikely the young will return from a prosperous area/country/place to another that has less economic prospects or material conditions.
Russia mobilizes
261,033 Views |
4259 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by sombear
Those are known and very old trade routes which fell into disuse because Russia is a natural part of the European economy....it is closer, better connected to the European economic system which dwarfs everything combined within 500miles of that Caspian line to Iran from stem to stern. And most of that trade route is overland which is prohibitively expensive compared to sea transport, even moreso when talking about lower value of raw materials.Redbrickbear said:
So, yeah, Russia will get their stuff out. at exhorbitantly higher cost. to much smaller markets. much poorer markets. that will have very limited capability to refine or process those raw materials. much more politically unstable markets, etc....... EX: the reason Russia needs Sebastopol is to harbor a fleet to protect its Black Sea trade route which is SUBSTANTIALLY more economical than the overland route to Iran. Russia COULD change its foreign policy and ship stuff from St Petersburg to wealthy, proximate markets and make a lot more money per unit and gain relationships that would help develop their own economy. Instead, they have to rail, then handle onto ship, then handle back onto rail, then across the Persian desert, then onto a ship that will STILL have to transit straits it does not control (Straits of Hormuz) just to get to blue water and STILL have to sail past Diego Garcia....just to get to 3rd world markets instead of Europe.
Russia will be a big fish in a very small pond with very low oxygen levels. They will be in the ecosystem of the third world rather than the first. That is a very dim future when one needs to accelerate productivity to offset population decline.
(I could go on about the downward spiral, but suffice to say Russia is facing a pretty bleak future, hitching their wagon to allies who are mostly in or about to enter decline. That article is not an explanation of success...... It is an example of what happens when you do stupid stuff and have to go reinvent wheels rendered obsolete 1000 years ago.)
Nobody supporting them will waver because they know the Orthodox Church has been a problem and needs to be dealt with.RMF5630 said:Try selling that to the world as they take the Monks, whose Order has been there sine 1051, into custody or worse yet remove them by force. Zelensky is going to lose in the Courts of Public Opinion, which WILL influence support. Stupid move at this point in time, even if he is right. He can't win this battle over this site.whiterock said:Disagree.RMF5630 said:This was a Zelensky mistake. This move is a clear, understandable and symbolic place that will allow his opponents to crystalize their point. This move gives Putin's claims credence and will bring question to Zelensky's credibility in the West.Sam Lowry said:
If y'all like killing bloggers, you're going to love attacking churches.Quote:
Showdown at the Lavra
Zelensky has given the monks of Kiev's most sacred Orthodox monastery until next week to evacuate. They say they're not leaving.
Tim Andrews
Mar 22, 2023
Tens of thousands of Kiev residents took to the streets earlier this week in protest and prayer. The reason was an announcement on March 10 by the Zelensky government that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) would have to relinquish control of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, a large monastery complex that includes the Holy Dormition cathedral and monastery, the church's headquarters. The monks have been given until March 29 to leave.
The lavra was founded in 1051 and is the spiritual home of Orthodoxy in Ukraine. It fell into disrepair during the Soviet era. The Holy Dormition cathedral was turned into an anti-religious museum, and many structures in the complex were destroyed. In 1988, the millennium of Slavic Christianity, Mikhail Gorbachev allowed monks to return. Over the following years, the UOC slowly repaired the damaged buildings and rebuilt the lavra into a thriving religious site. It is that church that the government is now evicting.
This eviction is an escalation of the wave of persecution that began late last year, on the pretext that the church is under Russian control. The UOC is in fact independent and not subordinate to the Moscow patriarchate. Its leader, Metropolitan Onufriy, has unequivocally condemned the Russian invasion from the very beginning, saying it has "no justification either with God or men" and has "brought death and destruction to the Ukrainian land."
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/showdown-at-the-lavra/
The Ukrainian church has effectively split into pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian camps. Metropolitan Pavlo (aka Pavlo Lebed) is head of the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP)." This facility is dominated by the pro-Russian faction. The UOC-MP did not break ties with the Russian Orthodox Church until May last year, long after the war started.
Zelensky is not cracking down on religion. he is cracking down on Russian sympathizers in control of a large faction of a major societal institution. He has shown considerable restraint. He has escalated pressure appropriately. And his action is proportionate to circumstances. He's taking control of a building being used to promote Russian interests. and. The Ukrainian government OWNS the building in question. So it's an eviction, not a seizing pursuant to forfeiture.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2023/04/01/Ukraine-Russia-orthodox-church-Pavel-Lebed/4151680377371/
All very very good points.whiterock said:Those are known and very old trade routes which fell into disuse because Russia is a natural part of the European economy....it is closer, better connected to the European economic system which dwarfs everything combined within 500miles of that Caspian line to Iran from stem to stern. And most of that trade route is overland which is prohibitively expensive compared to sea transport, even moreso when talking about lower value of raw materials.Redbrickbear said:
So, yeah, Russia will get their stuff out. at exhorbitantly higher cost. to much smaller markets. much poorer markets. that will have very limited capability to refine or process those raw materials. much more politically unstable markets, etc....... EX: the reason Russia needs Sebastopol is to harbor a fleet to protect its Black Sea trade route which is SUBSTANTIALLY more economical than the overland route to Iran. Russia COULD change its foreign policy and ship stuff from St Petersburg to wealthy, proximate markets and make a lot more money per unit and gain relationships that would help develop their own economy. Instead, they have to rail, then handle onto ship, then handle back onto rail, then across the Persian desert, then onto a ship that will STILL have to transit straits it does not control (Straits of Hormuz) just to get to blue water and STILL have to sail past Diego Garcia....just to get to 3rd world markets instead of Europe.
Russia will be a big fish in a very small pond with very low oxygen levels. They will be in the ecosystem of the third world rather than the first. That is a very dim future when one needs to accelerate productivity to offset population decline.
(I could go on about the downward spiral, but suffice to say Russia is facing a pretty bleak future, hitching their wagon to allies who are mostly in or about to enter decline. That article is not an explanation of success...... It is an example of what happens when you do stupid stuff and have to go reinvent wheels rendered obsolete 1000 years ago.)
Of course it leaves out the important fact that USA foreign policy (and NATO expansion) is a part of what is driving Russia into worse trade relations with worse partners.
Russia belongs with Europe...instead our elites are helping to drive them into a strange collaboration with Iran and China.
Japan has broken the pact with the US and its Allies and has bought Russian oil above the price cap ⚠️ pic.twitter.com/rw7gw6Hws9
— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) April 2, 2023
Yep. None of these choices were of their own doing. It's all America's fault, all the time. Russia doesn't make poor decisions...Redbrickbear said:All very very good points.whiterock said:Those are known and very old trade routes which fell into disuse because Russia is a natural part of the European economy....it is closer, better connected to the European economic system which dwarfs everything combined within 500miles of that Caspian line to Iran from stem to stern. And most of that trade route is overland which is prohibitively expensive compared to sea transport, even moreso when talking about lower value of raw materials.Redbrickbear said:
So, yeah, Russia will get their stuff out. at exhorbitantly higher cost. to much smaller markets. much poorer markets. that will have very limited capability to refine or process those raw materials. much more politically unstable markets, etc....... EX: the reason Russia needs Sebastopol is to harbor a fleet to protect its Black Sea trade route which is SUBSTANTIALLY more economical than the overland route to Iran. Russia COULD change its foreign policy and ship stuff from St Petersburg to wealthy, proximate markets and make a lot more money per unit and gain relationships that would help develop their own economy. Instead, they have to rail, then handle onto ship, then handle back onto rail, then across the Persian desert, then onto a ship that will STILL have to transit straits it does not control (Straits of Hormuz) just to get to blue water and STILL have to sail past Diego Garcia....just to get to 3rd world markets instead of Europe.
Russia will be a big fish in a very small pond with very low oxygen levels. They will be in the ecosystem of the third world rather than the first. That is a very dim future when one needs to accelerate productivity to offset population decline.
(I could go on about the downward spiral, but suffice to say Russia is facing a pretty bleak future, hitching their wagon to allies who are mostly in or about to enter decline. That article is not an explanation of success...... It is an example of what happens when you do stupid stuff and have to go reinvent wheels rendered obsolete 1000 years ago.)
Of course it leaves out the important fact that USA foreign policy (and NATO expansion) is a part of what is driving Russia into worse trade relations with worse partners.
Russia belongs with Europe...instead our elites are helping to drive them into a strange collaboration with Iran and China.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Didn't say that.trey3216 said:Yep. None of these choices were of their own doing. It's all America's fault, all the time. Russia doesn't make poor decisions...Redbrickbear said:All very very good points.whiterock said:Those are known and very old trade routes which fell into disuse because Russia is a natural part of the European economy....it is closer, better connected to the European economic system which dwarfs everything combined within 500miles of that Caspian line to Iran from stem to stern. And most of that trade route is overland which is prohibitively expensive compared to sea transport, even moreso when talking about lower value of raw materials.Redbrickbear said:
So, yeah, Russia will get their stuff out. at exhorbitantly higher cost. to much smaller markets. much poorer markets. that will have very limited capability to refine or process those raw materials. much more politically unstable markets, etc....... EX: the reason Russia needs Sebastopol is to harbor a fleet to protect its Black Sea trade route which is SUBSTANTIALLY more economical than the overland route to Iran. Russia COULD change its foreign policy and ship stuff from St Petersburg to wealthy, proximate markets and make a lot more money per unit and gain relationships that would help develop their own economy. Instead, they have to rail, then handle onto ship, then handle back onto rail, then across the Persian desert, then onto a ship that will STILL have to transit straits it does not control (Straits of Hormuz) just to get to blue water and STILL have to sail past Diego Garcia....just to get to 3rd world markets instead of Europe.
Russia will be a big fish in a very small pond with very low oxygen levels. They will be in the ecosystem of the third world rather than the first. That is a very dim future when one needs to accelerate productivity to offset population decline.
(I could go on about the downward spiral, but suffice to say Russia is facing a pretty bleak future, hitching their wagon to allies who are mostly in or about to enter decline. That article is not an explanation of success...... It is an example of what happens when you do stupid stuff and have to go reinvent wheels rendered obsolete 1000 years ago.)
Of course it leaves out the important fact that USA foreign policy (and NATO expansion) is a part of what is driving Russia into worse trade relations with worse partners.
Russia belongs with Europe...instead our elites are helping to drive them into a strange collaboration with Iran and China.
Russia makes plenty of poor decisions all the time.
But they didn't force the U.S. intelligence agencies to help stage a coup in Ukraine...nor are they forcing anyone to play around in Georgia or Belarus.
If we want to drive Russia into the arms of Iran and China...we need to just keep on doing what our elites and intelligence agencies are doing right now.
agreed. Iran makes a little sense. They are no longer a threat to Russian interests the shatterzones in the Caucusus or central Asia and can be willingly used to triangulate against the two nations which are: Turkey and China. So there's some common ground there. It's China that's Russia's largest strategic threat. China could take all of Siberia tomorrow and Russia couldn't do anything to stop them short of nuclear exchange (which doesn't exactly solve the problem). But perspective is perspective and it's baked in on the Russian side. Russian history is instructive. For many, many centuries, Russia paid tribute to Khans to the east and the Khans let them alone....let Russia be Russia. It was the west which always demanded Russia change. Initially, it was the early Catholic vs Orthodox conflict over the Slavic world. Most people don't realize there were formally declared crusades in the Baltics, Belarus, western Russia, etc..... Genuine battles for identity, which forged identities. That all ended at the Battle on the Ice. Then it devolved into centuries of desultory internal debate about social and economic modernization, internally generated by a recognition that they were behind Europe and losing ground in ways that would sharply limit Russian power, creating internal stresses between leadership, who recognized needs but had serious opposition from the boyars who had no intention of giving up their serfs. WWI and the Bolsheviks ended that. Now, it's a more explicitly external dynamic over political modernization...the demand for democracy as a prerequisite for Russia to join the liberal order. But Russia has a syndrome of wanting to be appreciated as it is rather than stepping up and truly joining the European order, thereby resulting in them getting figuratively kicked back out onto the steppes to shiver in petty trade with very poor nations.Redbrickbear said:All very very good points.whiterock said:Those are known and very old trade routes which fell into disuse because Russia is a natural part of the European economy....it is closer, better connected to the European economic system which dwarfs everything combined within 500miles of that Caspian line to Iran from stem to stern. And most of that trade route is overland which is prohibitively expensive compared to sea transport, even moreso when talking about lower value of raw materials.Redbrickbear said:
So, yeah, Russia will get their stuff out. at exhorbitantly higher cost. to much smaller markets. much poorer markets. that will have very limited capability to refine or process those raw materials. much more politically unstable markets, etc....... EX: the reason Russia needs Sebastopol is to harbor a fleet to protect its Black Sea trade route which is SUBSTANTIALLY more economical than the overland route to Iran. Russia COULD change its foreign policy and ship stuff from St Petersburg to wealthy, proximate markets and make a lot more money per unit and gain relationships that would help develop their own economy. Instead, they have to rail, then handle onto ship, then handle back onto rail, then across the Persian desert, then onto a ship that will STILL have to transit straits it does not control (Straits of Hormuz) just to get to blue water and STILL have to sail past Diego Garcia....just to get to 3rd world markets instead of Europe.
Russia will be a big fish in a very small pond with very low oxygen levels. They will be in the ecosystem of the third world rather than the first. That is a very dim future when one needs to accelerate productivity to offset population decline.
(I could go on about the downward spiral, but suffice to say Russia is facing a pretty bleak future, hitching their wagon to allies who are mostly in or about to enter decline. That article is not an explanation of success...... It is an example of what happens when you do stupid stuff and have to go reinvent wheels rendered obsolete 1000 years ago.)
Of course it leaves out the important fact that USA foreign policy (and NATO expansion) is a part of what is driving Russia into worse trade relations with worse partners.
Russia belongs with Europe...instead our elites are helping to drive them into a strange collaboration with Iran and China.
We...Europe and North America, do not want an autocratic Russia as part of the Western Entente. Does not work. Ukraine is showing us why. We will wait out Putin (or cause his collapse over the Ukrainian debacle), and wait out the next despot if necessary. We do not want to normalize invasion of neighbors in Europe. To much work, not to mention too many lives, have been spent getting Europe to where we are now. Russia will have to change, or deal with the consequences. Eventually, they will get the message, if not this century then the next.
Let's see how Germany, UK and the US GOP react to it...whiterock said:Nobody supporting them will waver because they know the Orthodox Church has been a problem and needs to be dealt with.RMF5630 said:Try selling that to the world as they take the Monks, whose Order has been there sine 1051, into custody or worse yet remove them by force. Zelensky is going to lose in the Courts of Public Opinion, which WILL influence support. Stupid move at this point in time, even if he is right. He can't win this battle over this site.whiterock said:Disagree.RMF5630 said:This was a Zelensky mistake. This move is a clear, understandable and symbolic place that will allow his opponents to crystalize their point. This move gives Putin's claims credence and will bring question to Zelensky's credibility in the West.Sam Lowry said:
If y'all like killing bloggers, you're going to love attacking churches.Quote:
Showdown at the Lavra
Zelensky has given the monks of Kiev's most sacred Orthodox monastery until next week to evacuate. They say they're not leaving.
Tim Andrews
Mar 22, 2023
Tens of thousands of Kiev residents took to the streets earlier this week in protest and prayer. The reason was an announcement on March 10 by the Zelensky government that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) would have to relinquish control of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, a large monastery complex that includes the Holy Dormition cathedral and monastery, the church's headquarters. The monks have been given until March 29 to leave.
The lavra was founded in 1051 and is the spiritual home of Orthodoxy in Ukraine. It fell into disrepair during the Soviet era. The Holy Dormition cathedral was turned into an anti-religious museum, and many structures in the complex were destroyed. In 1988, the millennium of Slavic Christianity, Mikhail Gorbachev allowed monks to return. Over the following years, the UOC slowly repaired the damaged buildings and rebuilt the lavra into a thriving religious site. It is that church that the government is now evicting.
This eviction is an escalation of the wave of persecution that began late last year, on the pretext that the church is under Russian control. The UOC is in fact independent and not subordinate to the Moscow patriarchate. Its leader, Metropolitan Onufriy, has unequivocally condemned the Russian invasion from the very beginning, saying it has "no justification either with God or men" and has "brought death and destruction to the Ukrainian land."
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/showdown-at-the-lavra/
The Ukrainian church has effectively split into pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian camps. Metropolitan Pavlo (aka Pavlo Lebed) is head of the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP)." This facility is dominated by the pro-Russian faction. The UOC-MP did not break ties with the Russian Orthodox Church until May last year, long after the war started.
Zelensky is not cracking down on religion. he is cracking down on Russian sympathizers in control of a large faction of a major societal institution. He has shown considerable restraint. He has escalated pressure appropriately. And his action is proportionate to circumstances. He's taking control of a building being used to promote Russian interests. and. The Ukrainian government OWNS the building in question. So it's an eviction, not a seizing pursuant to forfeiture.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2023/04/01/Ukraine-Russia-orthodox-church-Pavel-Lebed/4151680377371/
371 million barrels of oil left in the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve . . . OPEC +
— Lori (@LJT_is_me) April 4, 2023
THE COST OF WAR https://t.co/J9tDPsumA5 pic.twitter.com/9H07zVkPrQ
On the contrary, there were many opportunities.ATL Bear said:We had a short window to have a different relationship with Russia.Sam Lowry said:Sure.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:It's the same thing they always say.RMF5630 said:None taken. Doesn't make it untrue...Sam Lowry said:No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.RMF5630 said:The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.whiterock said:Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?Sam Lowry said:I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?whiterock said:WE would be safer.Sam Lowry said:How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?whiterock said:Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.Sam Lowry said:
MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.
Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.
Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e
if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.
How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?
Russia would not.
But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.
Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.
Give us an example of Putin not having his shirt off and showing restraint.Quote:
Putin Says 'Why Not?' to Russia Joining NATO
By David Hoffman
March 6, 2000
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner.
"Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner."
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
A relationshipe requires effort from more than 1 party. It doesn't have to be contractual, just has to be 2 parties thinking in a similar manner.Sam Lowry said:On the contrary, there were many opportunities.ATL Bear said:We had a short window to have a different relationship with Russia.Sam Lowry said:Sure.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:It's the same thing they always say.RMF5630 said:None taken. Doesn't make it untrue...Sam Lowry said:No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.RMF5630 said:The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.whiterock said:Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?Sam Lowry said:I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?whiterock said:WE would be safer.Sam Lowry said:How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?whiterock said:Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.Sam Lowry said:
MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.
Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.
Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e
if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.
How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?
Russia would not.
But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.
Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.
Give us an example of Putin not having his shirt off and showing restraint.Quote:
Putin Says 'Why Not?' to Russia Joining NATO
By David Hoffman
March 6, 2000
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner.
"Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner."
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
Russia was never going to build a relationship with the US. They are a binary thinking society. They are incapable of thinking about building a bigger pie. Every human action is a zero sum game for Russia. Until they realize, and make marked changes to their ideology in terms of how a 'relationship' is fulfilled, they'll never have a real one...with anyone.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Yup. Russia has had an inferiority complex since the middle ages! They constantly have to win. They do not believe in a win-win.trey3216 said:A relationshipe requires effort from more than 1 party. It doesn't have to be contractual, just has to be 2 parties thinking in a similar manner.Sam Lowry said:On the contrary, there were many opportunities.ATL Bear said:We had a short window to have a different relationship with Russia.Sam Lowry said:Sure.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:It's the same thing they always say.RMF5630 said:None taken. Doesn't make it untrue...Sam Lowry said:No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.RMF5630 said:The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.whiterock said:Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?Sam Lowry said:I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?whiterock said:WE would be safer.Sam Lowry said:How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?whiterock said:Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.Sam Lowry said:
MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.
Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.
Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e
if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.
How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?
Russia would not.
But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.
Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.
Give us an example of Putin not having his shirt off and showing restraint.Quote:
Putin Says 'Why Not?' to Russia Joining NATO
By David Hoffman
March 6, 2000
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner.
"Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner."
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
Russia was never going to build a relationship with the US. They are a binary thinking society. They are incapable of thinking about building a bigger pie. Every human action is a zero sum game for Russia. Until they realize, and make marked changes to their ideology in terms of how a 'relationship' is fulfilled, they'll never have a real one...with anyone.
That's a remarkably good description of the post-Cold War world…except that you spelled "America" wrong.trey3216 said:A relationshipe requires effort from more than 1 party. It doesn't have to be contractual, just has to be 2 parties thinking in a similar manner.Sam Lowry said:On the contrary, there were many opportunities.ATL Bear said:We had a short window to have a different relationship with Russia.Sam Lowry said:Sure.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:It's the same thing they always say.RMF5630 said:None taken. Doesn't make it untrue...Sam Lowry said:No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.RMF5630 said:The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.whiterock said:Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?Sam Lowry said:I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?whiterock said:WE would be safer.Sam Lowry said:How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?whiterock said:Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.Sam Lowry said:
MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.
Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.
Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e
if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.
How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?
Russia would not.
But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.
Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.
Give us an example of Putin not having his shirt off and showing restraint.Quote:
Putin Says 'Why Not?' to Russia Joining NATO
By David Hoffman
March 6, 2000
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner.
"Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner."
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
Russia was never going to build a relationship with the US. They are a binary thinking society. They are incapable of thinking about building a bigger pie. Every human action is a zero sum game for Russia. Until they realize, and make marked changes to their ideology in terms of how a 'relationship' is fulfilled, they'll never have a real one...with anyone.
Saw this coming along time ago… pic.twitter.com/xK4VSuI0Ed
— Cyndi (@OffCyndisc) April 4, 2023
Sam Lowry said:That's a remarkably good description of the post-Cold War world…except that you spelled "America" wrong.trey3216 said:A relationshipe requires effort from more than 1 party. It doesn't have to be contractual, just has to be 2 parties thinking in a similar manner.Sam Lowry said:On the contrary, there were many opportunities.ATL Bear said:We had a short window to have a different relationship with Russia.Sam Lowry said:Sure.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:It's the same thing they always say.RMF5630 said:None taken. Doesn't make it untrue...Sam Lowry said:No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.RMF5630 said:The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.whiterock said:Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?Sam Lowry said:I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?whiterock said:WE would be safer.Sam Lowry said:How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?whiterock said:Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.Sam Lowry said:
MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.
Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.
Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e
if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.
How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?
Russia would not.
But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.
Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.
Give us an example of Putin not having his shirt off and showing restraint.Quote:
Putin Says 'Why Not?' to Russia Joining NATO
By David Hoffman
March 6, 2000
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner.
"Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner."
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
Russia was never going to build a relationship with the US. They are a binary thinking society. They are incapable of thinking about building a bigger pie. Every human action is a zero sum game for Russia. Until they realize, and make marked changes to their ideology in terms of how a 'relationship' is fulfilled, they'll never have a real one...with anyone.
' Clever ' comment but factually inaccurate.
Russia exists only because the U.S. won the Cold War resulting in the dissolution of the Soviet Union .
Which, like all communist regimes, was an evil destroyer of millions of innocent lives .
Sad how so many Americans are utterly clueless of the commonality of violence , injustice and random slaughter found through most of the world .
That said nothing to the contrary, but it had some interesting tidbits. Particularly this one that is in full force right now. "[Speaking of Russia] they rely on anti-Americanism to legitimize their unpopular policies with domestic audiences." They're using this within the US today with our own citizens.Sam Lowry said:On the contrary, there were many opportunities.ATL Bear said:We had a short window to have a different relationship with Russia.Sam Lowry said:Sure.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:It's the same thing they always say.RMF5630 said:None taken. Doesn't make it untrue...Sam Lowry said:No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.RMF5630 said:The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.whiterock said:Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?Sam Lowry said:I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?whiterock said:WE would be safer.Sam Lowry said:How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?whiterock said:Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.Sam Lowry said:
MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.
Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.
Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e
if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.
How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?
Russia would not.
But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.
Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.
Give us an example of Putin not having his shirt off and showing restraint.Quote:
Putin Says 'Why Not?' to Russia Joining NATO
By David Hoffman
March 6, 2000
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner.
"Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner."
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
The closest we got to a shift on both sides was during the earliest GW Bush admin. Up to and for a period after the Crawford, Tx visit it almost manifested in a different path. Then the Iraq distraction started on our side and Georgia on theirs, and it has been a steady decline since.
It's incredible the naivity and disdain some people have.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:That's a remarkably good description of the post-Cold War world…except that you spelled "America" wrong.trey3216 said:A relationshipe requires effort from more than 1 party. It doesn't have to be contractual, just has to be 2 parties thinking in a similar manner.Sam Lowry said:On the contrary, there were many opportunities.ATL Bear said:We had a short window to have a different relationship with Russia.Sam Lowry said:Sure.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:It's the same thing they always say.RMF5630 said:None taken. Doesn't make it untrue...Sam Lowry said:No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.RMF5630 said:The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.whiterock said:Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?Sam Lowry said:I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?whiterock said:WE would be safer.Sam Lowry said:How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?whiterock said:Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.Sam Lowry said:
MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.
Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.
Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e
if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.
How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?
Russia would not.
But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.
Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.
Give us an example of Putin not having his shirt off and showing restraint.Quote:
Putin Says 'Why Not?' to Russia Joining NATO
By David Hoffman
March 6, 2000
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner.
"Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner."
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
Russia was never going to build a relationship with the US. They are a binary thinking society. They are incapable of thinking about building a bigger pie. Every human action is a zero sum game for Russia. Until they realize, and make marked changes to their ideology in terms of how a 'relationship' is fulfilled, they'll never have a real one...with anyone.
' Clever ' comment but factually inaccurate.
Russia exists only because the U.S. won the Cold War resulting in the dissolution of the Soviet Union .
Which, like all communist regimes, was an evil destroyer of millions of innocent lives .
Sad how so many Americans are utterly clueless of the commonality of violence , injustice and random slaughter found through most of the world .
EDIT: Doesn't like the word Navete with the accent.
But remember, it's the rest of the world that's isolated. Not us.Redbrickbear said:Saw this coming along time ago… pic.twitter.com/xK4VSuI0Ed
— Cyndi (@OffCyndisc) April 4, 2023
This is a bigger problem than just foreign policy.Redbrickbear said:Saw this coming along time ago… pic.twitter.com/xK4VSuI0Ed
— Cyndi (@OffCyndisc) April 4, 2023
The thesis of the article is exactly to the contrary. It's the whole point of the thing, so I'm not sure how you missed it.ATL Bear said:That said nothing to the contrary, but it had some interesting tidbits. Particularly this one that is in full force right now. "[Speaking of Russia] they rely on anti-Americanism to legitimize their unpopular policies with domestic audiences." They're using this within the US today with our own citizens.Sam Lowry said:On the contrary, there were many opportunities.ATL Bear said:We had a short window to have a different relationship with Russia.Sam Lowry said:Sure.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:It's the same thing they always say.RMF5630 said:None taken. Doesn't make it untrue...Sam Lowry said:No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.RMF5630 said:The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.whiterock said:Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?Sam Lowry said:I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?whiterock said:WE would be safer.Sam Lowry said:How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?whiterock said:Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.Sam Lowry said:
MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.
Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.
Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e
if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.
How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?
Russia would not.
But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.
Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.
Give us an example of Putin not having his shirt off and showing restraint.Quote:
Putin Says 'Why Not?' to Russia Joining NATO
By David Hoffman
March 6, 2000
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner.
"Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner."
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
The closest we got to a shift on both sides was during the earliest GW Bush admin. Up to and for a period after the Crawford, Tx visit it almost manifested in a different path. Then the Iraq distraction started on our side and Georgia on theirs, and it has been a steady decline since.
I'm well aware of the commonality of violence and injustice in the world. What's sad is how many Americans don't realize we're part of the world too.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:That's a remarkably good description of the post-Cold War world…except that you spelled "America" wrong.trey3216 said:A relationshipe requires effort from more than 1 party. It doesn't have to be contractual, just has to be 2 parties thinking in a similar manner.Sam Lowry said:On the contrary, there were many opportunities.ATL Bear said:We had a short window to have a different relationship with Russia.Sam Lowry said:Sure.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:It's the same thing they always say.RMF5630 said:None taken. Doesn't make it untrue...Sam Lowry said:No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.RMF5630 said:The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.whiterock said:Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?Sam Lowry said:I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?whiterock said:WE would be safer.Sam Lowry said:How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?whiterock said:Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.Sam Lowry said:
MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.
Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.
Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e
if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.
How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?
Russia would not.
But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.
Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.
Give us an example of Putin not having his shirt off and showing restraint.Quote:
Putin Says 'Why Not?' to Russia Joining NATO
By David Hoffman
March 6, 2000
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner.
"Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner."
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
Russia was never going to build a relationship with the US. They are a binary thinking society. They are incapable of thinking about building a bigger pie. Every human action is a zero sum game for Russia. Until they realize, and make marked changes to their ideology in terms of how a 'relationship' is fulfilled, they'll never have a real one...with anyone.
' Clever ' comment but factually inaccurate.
Russia exists only because the U.S. won the Cold War resulting in the dissolution of the Soviet Union .
Which, like all communist regimes, was an evil destroyer of millions of innocent lives .
Sad how so many Americans are utterly clueless of the commonality of violence , injustice and random slaughter found through most of the world .
In 15 years people will say they never supported involvement with Ukraine just like they claim they never supported invading Iraq, drone bombing children and 20 years of war. They chalk it up to "well that was an accident, but no big deal, we've learned from our mistakes". They say these things in the face of there being absolutely ZERO accountability.Sam Lowry said:I'm well aware of the commonality of violence and injustice in the world. What's sad is how many Americans don't realize we're part of the world too.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:That's a remarkably good description of the post-Cold War world…except that you spelled "America" wrong.trey3216 said:A relationshipe requires effort from more than 1 party. It doesn't have to be contractual, just has to be 2 parties thinking in a similar manner.Sam Lowry said:On the contrary, there were many opportunities.ATL Bear said:We had a short window to have a different relationship with Russia.Sam Lowry said:Sure.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:It's the same thing they always say.RMF5630 said:None taken. Doesn't make it untrue...Sam Lowry said:No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.RMF5630 said:The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.whiterock said:Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?Sam Lowry said:I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?whiterock said:WE would be safer.Sam Lowry said:How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?whiterock said:Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.Sam Lowry said:
MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.
Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.
Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e
if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.
How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?
Russia would not.
But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.
Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.
Give us an example of Putin not having his shirt off and showing restraint.Quote:
Putin Says 'Why Not?' to Russia Joining NATO
By David Hoffman
March 6, 2000
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner.
"Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner."
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
Russia was never going to build a relationship with the US. They are a binary thinking society. They are incapable of thinking about building a bigger pie. Every human action is a zero sum game for Russia. Until they realize, and make marked changes to their ideology in terms of how a 'relationship' is fulfilled, they'll never have a real one...with anyone.
' Clever ' comment but factually inaccurate.
Russia exists only because the U.S. won the Cold War resulting in the dissolution of the Soviet Union .
Which, like all communist regimes, was an evil destroyer of millions of innocent lives .
Sad how so many Americans are utterly clueless of the commonality of violence , injustice and random slaughter found through most of the world .
It never crosses their mind that powers in DC who nefariously got us into a failed 20 year war are highly likely to drag us down another horrible path.
My view on this situation is less about Ukraine-Russia and more about how stupid the DC establishment is.
The best thing about being part of the D.C. foreign policy blob or the liberal ruling class is that you never have to say you are sorry.Doc Holliday said:In 15 years people will say they never supported involvement with Ukraine just like they claim they never supported invading Iraq, drone bombing children and 20 years of war. They chalk it up to "well that was an accident, but no big deal, we've learned from our mistakes". They say these things in the face of there being absolutely ZERO accountability.Sam Lowry said:I'm well aware of the commonality of violence and injustice in the world. What's sad is how many Americans don't realize we're part of the world too.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:That's a remarkably good description of the post-Cold War world…except that you spelled "America" wrong.trey3216 said:A relationshipe requires effort from more than 1 party. It doesn't have to be contractual, just has to be 2 parties thinking in a similar manner.Sam Lowry said:On the contrary, there were many opportunities.ATL Bear said:We had a short window to have a different relationship with Russia.Sam Lowry said:Sure.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:It's the same thing they always say.RMF5630 said:None taken. Doesn't make it untrue...Sam Lowry said:No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.RMF5630 said:The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.whiterock said:Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?Sam Lowry said:I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?whiterock said:WE would be safer.Sam Lowry said:How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?whiterock said:Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.Sam Lowry said:
MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.
Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.
Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e
if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.
How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?
Russia would not.
But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.
Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.
Give us an example of Putin not having his shirt off and showing restraint.Quote:
Putin Says 'Why Not?' to Russia Joining NATO
By David Hoffman
March 6, 2000
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner.
"Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner."
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
Russia was never going to build a relationship with the US. They are a binary thinking society. They are incapable of thinking about building a bigger pie. Every human action is a zero sum game for Russia. Until they realize, and make marked changes to their ideology in terms of how a 'relationship' is fulfilled, they'll never have a real one...with anyone.
' Clever ' comment but factually inaccurate.
Russia exists only because the U.S. won the Cold War resulting in the dissolution of the Soviet Union .
Which, like all communist regimes, was an evil destroyer of millions of innocent lives .
Sad how so many Americans are utterly clueless of the commonality of violence , injustice and random slaughter found through most of the world .
It never crosses their mind that powers in DC who nefariously got us into a failed 20 year war are highly likely to drag us down another horrible path.
Rank and file democrats don't blame the Clintons for anything...and even on this website of conservative-ish Baylor fans the Bush crime family is held up as some kind of paragon of Republican virtue.
You can make endless foreign policy mistakes...and get lots of people killed...and never be held accountable.
You read into it what you wanted, not what it actually says. It never said there were multiple opportunities, it simply said certain policies or ideals were in place by both sides and failed multiple times.Sam Lowry said:The thesis of the article is exactly to the contrary. It's the whole point of the thing, so I'm not sure how you missed it.ATL Bear said:That said nothing to the contrary, but it had some interesting tidbits. Particularly this one that is in full force right now. "[Speaking of Russia] they rely on anti-Americanism to legitimize their unpopular policies with domestic audiences." They're using this within the US today with our own citizens.Sam Lowry said:On the contrary, there were many opportunities.ATL Bear said:We had a short window to have a different relationship with Russia.Sam Lowry said:Sure.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:It's the same thing they always say.RMF5630 said:None taken. Doesn't make it untrue...Sam Lowry said:No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.RMF5630 said:The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.whiterock said:Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?Sam Lowry said:I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?whiterock said:WE would be safer.Sam Lowry said:How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?whiterock said:Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.Sam Lowry said:
MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.
Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.
Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e
if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.
How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?
Russia would not.
But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.
Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.
Give us an example of Putin not having his shirt off and showing restraint.Quote:
Putin Says 'Why Not?' to Russia Joining NATO
By David Hoffman
March 6, 2000
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner.
"Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner."
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
The closest we got to a shift on both sides was during the earliest GW Bush admin. Up to and for a period after the Crawford, Tx visit it almost manifested in a different path. Then the Iraq distraction started on our side and Georgia on theirs, and it has been a steady decline since.
lolATL Bear said:You read into it what you wanted, not what it actually says. It never said there were multiple opportunities, it simply said certain policies or ideals were in place by both sides and failed multiple times.Sam Lowry said:The thesis of the article is exactly to the contrary. It's the whole point of the thing, so I'm not sure how you missed it.ATL Bear said:That said nothing to the contrary, but it had some interesting tidbits. Particularly this one that is in full force right now. "[Speaking of Russia] they rely on anti-Americanism to legitimize their unpopular policies with domestic audiences." They're using this within the US today with our own citizens.Sam Lowry said:On the contrary, there were many opportunities.ATL Bear said:We had a short window to have a different relationship with Russia.Sam Lowry said:Sure.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:It's the same thing they always say.RMF5630 said:None taken. Doesn't make it untrue...Sam Lowry said:No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.RMF5630 said:The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.whiterock said:Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?Sam Lowry said:I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?whiterock said:WE would be safer.Sam Lowry said:How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?whiterock said:Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.Sam Lowry said:
MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.
Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.
Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e
if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.
How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?
Russia would not.
But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.
Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.
Give us an example of Putin not having his shirt off and showing restraint.Quote:
Putin Says 'Why Not?' to Russia Joining NATO
By David Hoffman
March 6, 2000
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner.
"Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner."
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
The closest we got to a shift on both sides was during the earliest GW Bush admin. Up to and for a period after the Crawford, Tx visit it almost manifested in a different path. Then the Iraq distraction started on our side and Georgia on theirs, and it has been a steady decline since.
🇷🇺 - Sanctions on Russia are working [updated with February '23 data]
— Agathe Demarais (@AgatheDemarais) April 4, 2023
• Oil, gas, coal extraction recorded annual drops (again) in February, weighing on Kremlin's finances
• Russia's GDP will not recover to pre-war ('21) level until 2027 - long-term economic outlook is bleak pic.twitter.com/LDlS0ziCwR
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Nope pic.twitter.com/WvaFq0VzcJ
— Leon Panetta's dank memes (@SecretNofun) April 1, 2023
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Things are getting kinda outta hand https://t.co/2sEHgQDtYi
— Edward Badgette (@acrimonyand) April 4, 2023
Doc Holliday said:In 15 years people will say they never supported involvement with Ukraine just like they claim they never supported invading Iraq, drone bombing children and 20 years of war. They chalk it up to "well that was an accident, but no big deal, we've learned from our mistakes". They say these things in the face of there being absolutely ZERO accountability.Sam Lowry said:I'm well aware of the commonality of violence and injustice in the world. What's sad is how many Americans don't realize we're part of the world too.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:That's a remarkably good description of the post-Cold War world…except that you spelled "America" wrong.trey3216 said:A relationshipe requires effort from more than 1 party. It doesn't have to be contractual, just has to be 2 parties thinking in a similar manner.Sam Lowry said:On the contrary, there were many opportunities.ATL Bear said:We had a short window to have a different relationship with Russia.Sam Lowry said:Sure.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:It's the same thing they always say.RMF5630 said:None taken. Doesn't make it untrue...Sam Lowry said:No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.RMF5630 said:The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.whiterock said:Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?Sam Lowry said:I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?whiterock said:WE would be safer.Sam Lowry said:How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?whiterock said:Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.Sam Lowry said:
MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.
Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.
Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e
if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.
How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?
Russia would not.
But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.
Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.
Give us an example of Putin not having his shirt off and showing restraint.Quote:
Putin Says 'Why Not?' to Russia Joining NATO
By David Hoffman
March 6, 2000
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner.
"Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner."
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
Russia was never going to build a relationship with the US. They are a binary thinking society. They are incapable of thinking about building a bigger pie. Every human action is a zero sum game for Russia. Until they realize, and make marked changes to their ideology in terms of how a 'relationship' is fulfilled, they'll never have a real one...with anyone.
' Clever ' comment but factually inaccurate.
Russia exists only because the U.S. won the Cold War resulting in the dissolution of the Soviet Union .
Which, like all communist regimes, was an evil destroyer of millions of innocent lives .
Sad how so many Americans are utterly clueless of the commonality of violence , injustice and random slaughter found through most of the world .
It never crosses their mind that powers in DC who nefariously got us into a failed 20 year war are highly likely to drag us down another horrible path.
My view on this situation is less about Ukraine-Russia and more about how stupid the DC establishment is.
Except they've learned enough to know to NOT get directly involved in the Russo-Ukraine War.
BREAKING: Twitter just labelled NPR as US state media pic.twitter.com/PSNHKV7kMv
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) April 5, 2023
Well it does get some funding from the Federal government so it is not technically false to call them that.Redbrickbear said:BREAKING: Twitter just labelled NPR as US state media pic.twitter.com/PSNHKV7kMv
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) April 5, 2023
NATO has gone too far in supplying weapons to Ukraine, we have never been so close to a world war, - Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijártó said after the meeting of the heads of foreign affairs of NATO.
— Malinda 🇺🇸🇺🇦🇵🇱🇨🇦🇮🇹🇦🇺🇬🇧🇬🇪🇩🇪🇸🇪 (@TreasChest) April 5, 2023
According to the Hungarian minister, NATO countries, by providing… pic.twitter.com/WJC9iP5hSb
NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg officially invited Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to the #NATO summit in #Vilnius.
— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) April 5, 2023
📰 CNN pic.twitter.com/v5vmpjdNGS
Peace can not be allowed to break out.
US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken rules out ceasefire talks between Russia and Ukraine at this time
— Spriter (@Spriter99880) April 8, 2023
“Russia must get to the point where it is ready to enter into constructive negotiations,” he said in an interview with the Funke media group.
“For some, the idea of a… pic.twitter.com/0sXFjWUqjz