whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back to something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

Oh Canada, please. LOL.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Just amazingly out of touch with reality, totally, naively, blithely assuming the best of Russian intentions. Gen. Cavoli has himself cited the obvious - Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more. You, however, are so convinced we are the bad guys you are utterly unable to see that it is your actions which will lead us to war.

---

In the 21st century, becoming a General has more to do with politics than command capability. Does Cavoli know what a woman is, or is he in the Milley club? Political promotion has always been a thing, but not nearly to this extent. So I really don't have much respect for the opinions of modern Generals.
Except when you quote them to support your point, as you did with Cavoli.

Modern Russia is not an expansionist communist power that is trying to export Lenin's ideology. It is an Orthodox Christian nation. It has no desire to rule people in Lyiv, Warsaw, Talinn, or Berlin because it realizes that incorporating these people into its borders will destabilize its native population and culture. Nor does it have any desire to genocide these people and replace them with a superior race.
You are making up stuff flatly at odds with Russian statements and actions, for no other reason than to justify your isolationist inclinations.

You really need to leave some of your cold warrior ideas behind in the past to understand the modern world.
The Cold War was not particularly different than any other, friend. It was about control of geography, spheres of influence, etc.....just like this one. Russian desire for warm water ports....Russian desire for domination of Eastern Europe....Russian desire for domination of the Caucasus, Russian desire for domination of central Asia.... Very little has changed. The ideology justifying the conflict is different, but it's still at root mostly about Russian megalomania.

---

You are quite poorly informed on all aspects of this topic, from about the 9th century until today.

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

House Speaker Mike Johnson says he will push for aid to Israel and Ukraine this week https://t.co/FloIOKntx9

— The Associated Press (@AP) April 14, 2024

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to resort to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to result to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

---

Uh huh.

The White House announced its opposition to a standalone Israel aid bill without aid to Ukraine.

President Biden's threat to veto House Republicans' standalone Israel aid bill in February was enough to rally Democrats to defeat the measure. https://t.co/Nm6CsLrtBo

— Axios (@axios) April 15, 2024

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to resort to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

---

Jr. Hi. obscenities outclass the predictably juvenile pro-Russia nonsense we hear on this board.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to resort to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

---

Jr. Hi. obscenities outclass the predictably juvenile pro-Russia nonsense we hear on this board.

---

So if you disagree with someone's opinion, one is providing an insightful, informative rebuttal by posting juvenile obscenities.

Oh yeah that always impresses.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to resort to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

---

Jr. Hi. obscenities outclass the predictably juvenile pro-Russia nonsense we hear on this board.

---

Ironically enough, when I was in junior high my views on foreign policy in general and Russia in particular were nearly identical to yours.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to resort to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

---

Jr. Hi. obscenities outclass the predictably juvenile pro-Russia nonsense we hear on this board.

---

Ironically enough, when I was in junior high my views on foreign policy in general and Russia in particular were nearly identical to yours.

---

Then you got that Che poster as a freshman in high school and it all went downhill from there.

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to resort to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

---

Jr. Hi. obscenities outclass the predictably juvenile pro-Russia nonsense we hear on this board.

---

Ironically enough, when I was in junior high my views on foreign policy in general and Russia in particular were nearly identical to yours.

---

Then you got that Che poster as a freshman in high school and it all went downhill from there.

---

Sounds like you're the kind of person who thinks a bumper sticker is a fact source…that says a lot.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to resort to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

---

Jr. Hi. obscenities outclass the predictably juvenile pro-Russia nonsense we hear on this board.

---

Ironically enough, when I was in junior high my views on foreign policy in general and Russia in particular were nearly identical to yours.

---

Then you got that Che poster as a freshman in high school and it all went downhill from there.

---

Sounds like you're the kind of person who thinks a bumper sticker is a fact source…that says a lot.

---

Sounds like I am close to the truth about you. And I wouldn't be talking about fact sources when you've tried to pass along pedophiles, rapists, communists, socialists and fake press members as ones.

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I %A0a consistent critic of Putin %A0find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant %A0what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move %A0as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays %A0enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war %A0seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class %A0in government, the military, think tanks, and the media %A0have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. %A0They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it. %A0 %A0

It's not like they had to say it, either. %A0 History tells the story. %A0Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. %A0 That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. %A0 And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato. %A0

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda. %A0 %A0

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to resort to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

---

Jr. Hi. obscenities outclass the predictably juvenile pro-Russia nonsense we hear on this board. %A0

---

Ironically enough, when I was in junior high my views on foreign policy in general and Russia in particular were nearly identical to yours.

---

Then you got that Che poster as a freshman in high school and it all went downhill from there.

---

Sounds like you're the kind of person who thinks a bumper sticker is a fact source%85that says a lot.

---

Sounds like I am close to the truth about you. And I wouldn't be talking about fact sources when you've tried to pass along pedophiles, rapists, communists, socialists and fake press members as ones.

---

You wouldn't be talking about fact sources at all if you weren't busy making up slurs against them.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to resort to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

---

Jr. Hi. obscenities outclass the predictably juvenile pro-Russia nonsense we hear on this board.

---

Ironically enough, when I was in junior high my views on foreign policy in general and Russia in particular were nearly identical to yours.

---

Then you got that Che poster as a freshman in high school and it all went downhill from there.

---

Sounds like you're the kind of person who thinks a bumper sticker is a fact source…that says a lot.

---

Sounds like I am close to the truth about you. And I wouldn't be talking about fact sources when you've tried to pass along pedophiles, rapists, and fake press members as ones.

---

You wouldn't be talking about fact sources at all if you're weren't making up slurs against them.

---

No slurs at all. Quite proven. I know it's hard to see with you busy with Putin propaganda and all.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to resort to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

---

Jr. Hi. obscenities outclass the predictably juvenile pro-Russia nonsense we hear on this board.

---

So if you disagree with someone's opinion, one is providing an insightful, informative rebuttal by posting juvenile obscenities.

Oh yeah that always impresses.

---

I find it amusing that some would find his comments any less insightful that those to which he is responding....

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

America has no Ukraine Plan B except more war

https://asiatimes.com/2024/03/america-has-no-ukraine-plan-b-except-more-war/

Good read, shows where Whiterock's flawed numbers come from. Ukraine is collapsing and barring a foolish move by NATO to ignite WW3 by overtly deploying combat forces to Ukraine the choice is to give the Russians the eastern half, or lose the whole thing.

If sanity prevails President Trump will have negotiators at the table in 2025 hammering out the details of that first option and this latest neocon project will be added to the list of foreign policy misadventures that include Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam.

---

It's just Sam Lowery-lite, and actually undermines your assertion that Ukraine is out of manpower.

All you have to do to blow his argument out of the water is point to the combined GDP of Russia vs NATO. It's the difference between a pickup truck and a freight train.

---

Freight trains aren't built for war. Neither is the NATO economy. That's all I needed to say a year ago, and it's only proven truer in the weeks and months since.

---

LOL you blundered into that one. Freight trains are central to the Russian war machine.....their logistical chain relies upon them to a degree no other military does. Russia has an entire military command devoted to railway operations (+/- 30k troops).

No peacetime economy is built for war. They have to mobilize. And the size of your economy limits how much one can mobilize. The Russian economy is 10% the size of the Nato economy. They have no hope of winning a war against Nato.
https://www.worldeconomics.com/Thoughts/NATOs-Combined-GDP-is-far-larger-than-Russias.aspx

Russia also faces a daunting mismatch in population, 6-to-1:
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/groups/nato

Russia is already at the point where additional mobilizations will affect economic output.....

---

You missed the point. We never mobilized for Ukraine, and now it's far too late.

---

Nato doesn't need to fully mobilize to win the war in Ukraine. It has a 10-1 advantage.

---

But I thought the Russians were this big bad super duper threat to NATO?

Surely won't it take everything we have to hold back the endless hoards of battle trained russkie conscripts read to drive their invincible armies all the way to Paris?

---

One false dilemma after another.....

Russia cannot defeat Nato is a full-scale war where both sides are fully mobilized. The only way Russia can defeat Nato is with a strategy of unconventional warfare in small-engagement grey zone conflicts (google it) which seeks to destabilize a states/regions to create political ambiguity that makes it harder for Nato member states to build political will to respond effectively. Exactly like Ukraine from 2014-2022. And Georgia.

---

Ukraine and Georgia are NOT members of NATO.

These "greyzones" as you call them then are NOT covered by the NATO alliance so no aggression against the alliance has taken place.

Why should NATO respond to an attack that is NOT being directed against it or its members?

---

Again, we see the same reflexive faulty assumption in your analysis - that nothing outside one's borders matters. That is compounded by your lack of understanding of basic terminology - "greyzone" is not a place, yet you have substituted it for a concept which is = "shatter zone" (a concept which you also do not appear to grasp.)

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you......

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

America has no Ukraine Plan B except more war

https://asiatimes.com/2024/03/america-has-no-ukraine-plan-b-except-more-war/

Good read, shows where Whiterock's flawed numbers come from. Ukraine is collapsing and barring a foolish move by NATO to ignite WW3 by overtly deploying combat forces to Ukraine the choice is to give the Russians the eastern half, or lose the whole thing.

If sanity prevails President Trump will have negotiators at the table in 2025 hammering out the details of that first option and this latest neocon project will be added to the list of foreign policy misadventures that include Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam.

---

It's just Sam Lowery-lite, and actually undermines your assertion that Ukraine is out of manpower.

All you have to do to blow his argument out of the water is point to the combined GDP of Russia vs NATO. It's the difference between a pickup truck and a freight train.

---

Freight trains aren't built for war. Neither is the NATO economy. That's all I needed to say a year ago, and it's only proven truer in the weeks and months since.

---

LOL you blundered into that one. Freight trains are central to the Russian war machine.....their logistical chain relies upon them to a degree no other military does. Russia has an entire military command devoted to railway operations (+/- 30k troops).

No peacetime economy is built for war. They have to mobilize. And the size of your economy limits how much one can mobilize. The Russian economy is 10% the size of the Nato economy. They have no hope of winning a war against Nato.
https://www.worldeconomics.com/Thoughts/NATOs-Combined-GDP-is-far-larger-than-Russias.aspx

Russia also faces a daunting mismatch in population, 6-to-1:
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/groups/nato

Russia is already at the point where additional mobilizations will affect economic output.....

---

You missed the point. We never mobilized for Ukraine, and now it's far too late.

---

Nato doesn't need to fully mobilize to win the war in Ukraine. It has a 10-1 advantage. Just letting Ukraine have the stuff we were planning to destroy anyway has brought Russia to a standstill.

---

Not even close.

---

You're right. My statement wasn't close. It was Spot. On.

---

They're about to "standstill" their way into Chasiv Yar as we speak. That's four out of five major Russian objectives I identified a year ago, despite the fact they've been in a defensive posture almost the whole time. So yeah..."spot on."

---

Since their capture of Bakhnut a year ago, the Russians have advanced almost 10km to Yasiv Char, less a half-mile per month, nearly all of it in the last 60 days after the Ukrainians have run out of ammunition.

Can you not see how silly your point is here? Even at the rate Russia has advanced in the last month, it will take years for them to take everything east of the Dnieper.

If we keep supplying ammo, They won't take a yard.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to resort to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

---

Jr. Hi. obscenities outclass the predictably juvenile pro-Russia nonsense we hear on this board.

---

So if you disagree with someone's opinion, one is providing an insightful, informative rebuttal by posting juvenile obscenities.

Oh yeah that always impresses.

---

I find it amusing that some would find his comments any less insightful that those to which he is responding....

---

Then you must confuse childish obscenities for 'cleverness' whenever its convenient.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back to something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

LOL I have pointed that out *a half-dozen times or more) as my reason for NOT wanting to admit Ukraine to Nato for a decade or three!

NATO has stated criteria for membership, which includes two relevant items on this point: no border controversies, and stable democratic systems. Finland, Sweden, Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria....all have them. Ukraine does not. That is not to say Ukraine cannot or will not have them. Their application is in. So let them prove themselves out over the next 10-20 years (preferably the further end of that envelope). IF they get there, fine. If not, fine. They can remain in partner status.

But since you made the reflexivity argument, let's look at you insistence that the advance of Nato is a threat to Russia. Who has Nato invaded? (nobody). What Russia really means when they describe the growth of NATO as a threat is...they can't dominate those areas anymore (which is why those areas all wanted to join Nato).

FACT: Without Russia, Nato doesn't exist.

No matter how much you lionize and apologize for them, Russia is an aggressive expansionist power with delusions of imperial grandeur that no one WANTS to be dominated by.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to resort to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

---

Jr. Hi. obscenities outclass the predictably juvenile pro-Russia nonsense we hear on this board.

---

Ironically enough, when I was in junior high my views on foreign policy in general and Russia in particular were nearly identical to yours.

---

the declivity of the prodigy is a very sad tale indeed.....

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to resort to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

---

Jr. Hi. obscenities outclass the predictably juvenile pro-Russia nonsense we hear on this board.

---

So if you disagree with someone's opinion, one is providing an insightful, informative rebuttal by posting juvenile obscenities.

Oh yeah that always impresses.

---

I find it amusing that some would find his comments any less insightful that those to which he is responding....

---

Then you must confuse childish obscenities for 'cleverness' whenever its convenient.

---

ever heard two litigators go at it?

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

America has no Ukraine Plan B except more war

https://asiatimes.com/2024/03/america-has-no-ukraine-plan-b-except-more-war/

Good read, shows where Whiterock's flawed numbers come from. Ukraine is collapsing and barring a foolish move by NATO to ignite WW3 by overtly deploying combat forces to Ukraine the choice is to give the Russians the eastern half, or lose the whole thing.

If sanity prevails President Trump will have negotiators at the table in 2025 hammering out the details of that first option and this latest neocon project will be added to the list of foreign policy misadventures that include Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam.

---

It's just Sam Lowery-lite, and actually undermines your assertion that Ukraine is out of manpower.

All you have to do to blow his argument out of the water is point to the combined GDP of Russia vs NATO. It's the difference between a pickup truck and a freight train.

---

Freight trains aren't built for war. Neither is the NATO economy. That's all I needed to say a year ago, and it's only proven truer in the weeks and months since.

---

LOL you blundered into that one. Freight trains are central to the Russian war machine.....their logistical chain relies upon them to a degree no other military does. Russia has an entire military command devoted to railway operations (+/- 30k troops).

No peacetime economy is built for war. They have to mobilize. And the size of your economy limits how much one can mobilize. The Russian economy is 10% the size of the Nato economy. They have no hope of winning a war against Nato.
https://www.worldeconomics.com/Thoughts/NATOs-Combined-GDP-is-far-larger-than-Russias.aspx

Russia also faces a daunting mismatch in population, 6-to-1:
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/groups/nato

Russia is already at the point where additional mobilizations will affect economic output.....

---

You missed the point. We never mobilized for Ukraine, and now it's far too late.

---

Nato doesn't need to fully mobilize to win the war in Ukraine. It has a 10-1 advantage. Just letting Ukraine have the stuff we were planning to destroy anyway has brought Russia to a standstill.

---

Not even close.

---

You're right. My statement wasn't close. It was Spot. On.

---

They're about to "standstill" their way into Chasiv Yar as we speak. That's four out of five major Russian objectives I identified a year ago, despite the fact they've been in a defensive posture almost the whole time. So yeah..."spot on."

---

Since their capture of Bakhnut a year ago, the Russians have advanced almost 10km to Yasiv Char, less a half-mile per month, nearly all of it in the last 60 days after the Ukrainians have run out of ammunition.

Can you not see how silly your point is here? Even at the rate Russia has advanced in the last month, it will take years for them to take everything east of the Dnieper.

If we keep supplying ammo, They won't take a yard.

---

Note the phrase "despite being in a defensive posture." It's incredible that you've been watching this for the last year and still don't understand the Russian strategy.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back to something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

LOL I have pointed that out *a half-dozen times or more) as my reason for NOT wanting to admit Ukraine to Nato for a decade or three!

NATO has stated criteria for membership, which includes two relevant items on this point: no border controversies, and stable democratic systems. Finland, Sweden, Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria....all have them. Ukraine does not. That is not to say Ukraine cannot or will not have them. Their application is in. So let them prove themselves out over the next 10-20 years (preferably the further end of that envelope). IF they get there, fine. If not, fine. They can remain in partner status.

But since you made the reflexivity argument, let's look at you insistence that the advance of Nato is a threat to Russia. Who has Nato invaded? (nobody). What Russia really means when they describe the growth of NATO as a threat is...they can't dominate those areas anymore (which is why those areas all wanted to join Nato).

FACT: Without Russia, Nato doesn't exist.

No matter how much you lionize and apologize for them, Russia is an aggressive expansionist power with delusions of imperial grandeur that no one WANTS to be dominated by.

---

Your criteria are only relevant to NATO. They don't make Ukraine any less a threat to Russia, so waiting a decade or three doesn't change anything.

NATO doesn't exist only to defend against Russia. It's also there to pacify Europe -- a benefit that will be sorely missed as its influence continues to decline. France is already trying to position itself as a military leader in post-NATO Europe, much to the annoyance of the Germans.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back to something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

LOL I have pointed that out *a half-dozen times or more) as my reason for NOT wanting to admit Ukraine to Nato for a decade or three!

NATO has stated criteria for membership, which includes two relevant items on this point: no border controversies, and stable democratic systems. Finland, Sweden, Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria....all have them. Ukraine does not. That is not to say Ukraine cannot or will not have them. Their application is in. So let them prove themselves out over the next 10-20 years (preferably the further end of that envelope). IF they get there, fine. If not, fine. They can remain in partner status.

But since you made the reflexivity argument, let's look at you insistence that the advance of Nato is a threat to Russia. Who has Nato invaded? (nobody). What Russia really means when they describe the growth of NATO as a threat is...they can't dominate those areas anymore (which is why those areas all wanted to join Nato).

FACT: Without Russia, Nato doesn't exist.

No matter how much you lionize and apologize for them, Russia is an aggressive expansionist power with delusions of imperial grandeur that no one WANTS to be dominated by.

---

Your criteria are only relevant to NATO. They don't make Ukraine any less a threat to Russia, so waiting a decade or three doesn't change anything.

NATO doesn't exist only to defend against Russia. It's also there to pacify Europe -- a benefit that will be sorely missed as its influence continues to decline. France is already trying to position itself as a military leader in post-NATO Europe, much to the annoyance of the Germans.

---

I'm not sure if people do it on purpose but I find it incredibly dishonest discord to discuss why something exists or why something was founded.

Any organization can pivot and change direction. You rarely find people within an organization that even agree on why they exist.

NATO can't exist if every country leaves. And each country has their own reason for not leaving.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back to something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

LOL I have pointed that out *a half-dozen times or more) as my reason for NOT wanting to admit Ukraine to Nato for a decade or three!

NATO has stated criteria for membership, which includes two relevant items on this point: no border controversies, and stable democratic systems. Finland, Sweden, Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria....all have them. Ukraine does not. That is not to say Ukraine cannot or will not have them. Their application is in. So let them prove themselves out over the next 10-20 years (preferably the further end of that envelope). IF they get there, fine. If not, fine. They can remain in partner status.

But since you made the reflexivity argument, let's look at you insistence that the advance of Nato is a threat to Russia. Who has Nato invaded? (nobody). What Russia really means when they describe the growth of NATO as a threat is...they can't dominate those areas anymore (which is why those areas all wanted to join Nato).

FACT: Without Russia, Nato doesn't exist.

No matter how much you lionize and apologize for them, Russia is an aggressive expansionist power with delusions of imperial grandeur that no one WANTS to be dominated by.

---

Your criteria are only relevant to NATO. They don't make Ukraine any less a threat to Russia, so waiting a decade or three doesn't change anything.

NATO doesn't exist only to defend against Russia. It's also there to pacify Europe -- a benefit that will be sorely missed as its influence continues to decline. France is already trying to position itself as a military leader in post-NATO Europe, much to the annoyance of the Germans.

---

Isn't that what the US wants, at least under Trump? But, with less troops and less money the US influence will decline. There is a reason we kept troops there AND paid what we did for decades and it was not all about fear of the Russians.

This is what gets me. We say we want to pay less and bring troops home, then we get mad when we have less influence and others fill the void. Do the same in the Pacific and see how far China expands... There is a price. You want to keep things like they were which worked out well for the US, we have forward bases, pay and deploy. You want to save Nickles and have everyone home, the world don't care what we think.

ron.reagan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back to something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

LOL I have pointed that out *a half-dozen times or more) as my reason for NOT wanting to admit Ukraine to Nato for a decade or three!

NATO has stated criteria for membership, which includes two relevant items on this point: no border controversies, and stable democratic systems. Finland, Sweden, Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria....all have them. Ukraine does not. That is not to say Ukraine cannot or will not have them. Their application is in. So let them prove themselves out over the next 10-20 years (preferably the further end of that envelope). IF they get there, fine. If not, fine. They can remain in partner status.

But since you made the reflexivity argument, let's look at you insistence that the advance of Nato is a threat to Russia. Who has Nato invaded? (nobody). What Russia really means when they describe the growth of NATO as a threat is...they can't dominate those areas anymore (which is why those areas all wanted to join Nato).

FACT: Without Russia, Nato doesn't exist.

No matter how much you lionize and apologize for them, Russia is an aggressive expansionist power with delusions of imperial grandeur that no one WANTS to be dominated by.

---

Your criteria are only relevant to NATO. They don't make Ukraine any less a threat to Russia, so waiting a decade or three doesn't change anything.

NATO doesn't exist only to defend against Russia. It's also there to pacify Europe -- a benefit that will be sorely missed as its influence continues to decline. France is already trying to position itself as a military leader in post-NATO Europe, much to the annoyance of the Germans.

---

I'm not sure if people do it on purpose but I find it incredibly dishonest discord to discuss why something exists or why something was founded.

Any organization can pivot and change direction. You rarely find people within an organization that even agree on why they exist.

NATO can't exist if every country leaves. And each country has their own reason for not leaving.

---

No one's saying an organization can't change, but it had better know what it's doing. Forgetting NATO's purpose as a European pacifier has had real consequences. We've treated Europe as an unproblematic ally, which it isn't, and needlessly antagonized Russia. We're doing the same thing with Japan and China. Our great power rivals don't like it in part because they too have benefited from the postwar order. We're the ones who have undermined it with our neoliberal crusading.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to resort to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

---

Jr. Hi. obscenities outclass the predictably juvenile pro-Russia nonsense we hear on this board.

---

So if you disagree with someone's opinion, one is providing an insightful, informative rebuttal by posting juvenile obscenities.

Oh yeah that always impresses.

---

I find it amusing that some would find his comments any less insightful that those to which he is responding....

---

Then you must confuse childish obscenities for 'cleverness' whenever its convenient.

---

ever heard two litigators go at it?

---

Nope.

Don't watch mud wresting either.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back to something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

LOL I have pointed that out *a half-dozen times or more) as my reason for NOT wanting to admit Ukraine to Nato for a decade or three!

NATO has stated criteria for membership, which includes two relevant items on this point: no border controversies, and stable democratic systems. Finland, Sweden, Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria....all have them. Ukraine does not. That is not to say Ukraine cannot or will not have them. Their application is in. So let them prove themselves out over the next 10-20 years (preferably the further end of that envelope). IF they get there, fine. If not, fine. They can remain in partner status.

But since you made the reflexivity argument, let's look at you insistence that the advance of Nato is a threat to Russia. Who has Nato invaded? (nobody). What Russia really means when they describe the growth of NATO as a threat is...they can't dominate those areas anymore (which is why those areas all wanted to join Nato).

FACT: Without Russia, Nato doesn't exist.

No matter how much you lionize and apologize for them, Russia is an aggressive expansionist power with delusions of imperial grandeur that no one WANTS to be dominated by.

---

Your criteria are only relevant to NATO. They don't make Ukraine any less a threat to Russia, so waiting a decade or three doesn't change anything.

NATO doesn't exist only to defend against Russia. It's also there to pacify Europe -- a benefit that will be sorely missed as its influence continues to decline. France is already trying to position itself as a military leader in post-NATO Europe, much to the annoyance of the Germans.

---

They'll both be Islamic Calphates or Banana Republics in a generation.

Any of these western European nations pretending like they have any clout left on the global stage is hysterical.... and America isnt far behind.

The Chinese, Russians, Islamists, and Zionists play the long game. That is why the future is Asia.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back to something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

LOL I have pointed that out *a half-dozen times or more) as my reason for NOT wanting to admit Ukraine to Nato for a decade or three!

NATO has stated criteria for membership, which includes two relevant items on this point: no border controversies, and stable democratic systems. Finland, Sweden, Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria....all have them. Ukraine does not. That is not to say Ukraine cannot or will not have them. Their application is in. So let them prove themselves out over the next 10-20 years (preferably the further end of that envelope). IF they get there, fine. If not, fine. They can remain in partner status.

But since you made the reflexivity argument, let's look at you insistence that the advance of Nato is a threat to Russia. Who has Nato invaded? (nobody). What Russia really means when they describe the growth of NATO as a threat is...they can't dominate those areas anymore (which is why those areas all wanted to join Nato).

FACT: Without Russia, Nato doesn't exist.

No matter how much you lionize and apologize for them, Russia is an aggressive expansionist power with delusions of imperial grandeur that no one WANTS to be dominated by.

---

Your criteria are only relevant to NATO. They don't make Ukraine any less a threat to Russia, so waiting a decade or three doesn't change anything.

NATO doesn't exist only to defend against Russia. It's also there to pacify Europe -- a benefit that will be sorely missed as its influence continues to decline. France is already trying to position itself as a military leader in post-NATO Europe, much to the annoyance of the Germans.

---

Isn't that what the US wants, at least under Trump? But, with less troops and less money the US influence will decline. There is a reason we kept troops there AND paid what we did for decades and it was not all about fear of the Russians.

This is what gets me. We say we want to pay less and bring troops home, then we get mad when we have less influence and others fill the void. Do the same in the Pacific and see how far China expands... There is a price. You want to keep things like they were which worked out well for the US, we have forward bases, pay and deploy. You want to save Nickles and have everyone home, the world don't care what we think.

---

This is a non sequitur. The Americans who want to pay less and bringing troops home are not the ones getting upset over the rise of other nations and shifting global power dynamics.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back to something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

LOL I have pointed that out *a half-dozen times or more) as my reason for NOT wanting to admit Ukraine to Nato for a decade or three!

NATO has stated criteria for membership, which includes two relevant items on this point: no border controversies, and stable democratic systems. Finland, Sweden, Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria....all have them. Ukraine does not. That is not to say Ukraine cannot or will not have them. Their application is in. So let them prove themselves out over the next 10-20 years (preferably the further end of that envelope). IF they get there, fine. If not, fine. They can remain in partner status.

But since you made the reflexivity argument, let's look at you insistence that the advance of Nato is a threat to Russia. Who has Nato invaded? (nobody). What Russia really means when they describe the growth of NATO as a threat is...they can't dominate those areas anymore (which is why those areas all wanted to join Nato).

FACT: Without Russia, Nato doesn't exist.

No matter how much you lionize and apologize for them, Russia is an aggressive expansionist power with delusions of imperial grandeur that no one WANTS to be dominated by.

---

Your criteria are only relevant to NATO. They don't make Ukraine any less a threat to Russia, so waiting a decade or three doesn't change anything.

NATO doesn't exist only to defend against Russia. It's also there to pacify Europe -- a benefit that will be sorely missed as its influence continues to decline. France is already trying to position itself as a military leader in post-NATO Europe, much to the annoyance of the Germans.

---

Isn't that what the US wants, at least under Trump? But, with less troops and less money the US influence will decline. There is a reason we kept troops there AND paid what we did for decades and it was not all about fear of the Russians.

This is what gets me. We say we want to pay less and bring troops home, then we get mad when we have less influence and others fill the void. Do the same in the Pacific and see how far China expands... There is a price. You want to keep things like they were which worked out well for the US, we have forward bases, pay and deploy. You want to save Nickles and have everyone home, the world don't care what we think.

---

Vatniks and quislings don't care.