ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Somehow in your tiny brain you think something the US does justifies Russia murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

DC did not just invade Iraq. And the invasion happened from a continuous series of threats to attack US interests including our homeland. The invasion was 100% warranted

---

True...we invaded a lot of other places in the 20th century as well...I don't remember you crying about that.

And the invasion of Iraq killed somewhere between 250,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqis.....that is a lot of death and a lot of innocent people killed.

You obviously think the Iraq invasion was justified....well guess what bucko....Moscow thinks its Ukraine invasion is justified.

Both DC and Moscow violate international norms when they want....sadly.

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

DC did not just invade Iraq. And the invasion happened from a continuous series of threats to attack US interests including our homeland. The invasion was 100% warranted

---

A bunch of Saudi Arabian jihadists attack the USA and you think a massive costly invasion of Baathist-secularist Iraq was a correct response to that attack.

And you have the gall to call other posters stupid...

[the Bush administration had justified the invasion on the grounds that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. 57% of Americans at the time also believed, falsely, that Saddam had played a role in the 9/11 attacks, per Pew.]

https://www.axios.com/2023/03/18/iraq-invasion-anniversary-american-poll-bush-mistake

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

DC did not just invade Iraq. And the invasion happened from a continuous series of threats to attack US interests including our homeland. The invasion was 100% warranted

---

A bunch of Saudi Arabian jihadists attack the USA and you think a massive costly invasion of Baathist-secularist Iraq was a correct response to that attack.

And you have the gall to call other posters stupid...

[the Bush administration had justified the invasion on the grounds that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. 57% of Americans at the time also believed, falsely, that Saddam had played a role in the 9/11 attacks, per Pew.]

https://www.axios.com/2023/03/18/iraq-invasion-anniversary-american-poll-bush-mistake

---

I realize you never read anything about that war outside a 9/11 tower conspiracy site.

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Somehow in your tiny brain you think something the US does justifies Russia murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

DC did not just invade Iraq. And the invasion happened from a continuous series of threats to attack US interests including our homeland. The invasion was 100% warranted

---

True...we invaded a lot of other places in the 20th century as well...I don't remember you crying about that.

And the invasion of Iraq killed somewhere between 250,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqis.....that is a lot of death and a lot of innocent people killed.

You obviously think the Iraq invasion was justified....well guess what bucko....Moscow thinks its Ukraine invasion is justified.

Both DC and Moscow violate international norms when they want....sadly.

---

How many pro-hamas/anti-us rallies do you attend a week?

---

You're the liberal internationalist on here…so you tell me.

I'm not interested in supporting either side of a Semitic blood feud on the other side of the planet.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Somehow in your tiny brain you think something the US does justifies Russia murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

DC did not just invade Iraq. And the invasion happened from a continuous series of threats to attack US interests including our homeland. The invasion was 100% warranted

---

True...we invaded a lot of other places in the 20th century as well...I don't remember you crying about that.

And the invasion of Iraq killed somewhere between 250,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqis.....that is a lot of death and a lot of innocent people killed.

You obviously think the Iraq invasion was justified....well guess what bucko....Moscow thinks its Ukraine invasion is justified.

Both DC and Moscow violate international norms when they want....sadly.

---

How many pro-hamas/anti-us rallies do you attend a week?

---

You're the liberal internationalist on here…so you tell me.

I'm not interested in supporting either side of a Semitic blood fueled on the other side of the planet.

---

The only thing you could point out liberal about me was I hurt your Russian feelings

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Somehow in your tiny brain you think something the US does justifies Russia murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

DC did not just invade Iraq. And the invasion happened from a continuous series of threats to attack US interests including our homeland. The invasion was 100% warranted

---

True...we invaded a lot of other places in the 20th century as well...I don't remember you crying about that.

And the invasion of Iraq killed somewhere between 250,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqis.....that is a lot of death and a lot of innocent people killed.

You obviously think the Iraq invasion was justified....well guess what bucko....Moscow thinks its Ukraine invasion is justified.

Both DC and Moscow violate international norms when they want....sadly.

---

How many pro-hamas/anti-us rallies do you attend a week?

---

You're the liberal internationalist on here…so you tell me.

I'm not interested in supporting either side of a Semitic blood fueled on the other side of the planet.

---

The only thing you could point out liberal about me was I hurt your Russian feelings

---

I only have American feelings there little guy

You should try putting America first for a change before some other foreign country like Ukraine or Israel

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

DC did not just invade Iraq. And the invasion happened from a continuous series of threats to attack US interests including our homeland. The invasion was 100% warranted

---

A bunch of Saudi Arabian jihadists attack the USA and you think a massive costly invasion of Baathist-secularist Iraq was a correct response to that attack.

And you have the gall to call other posters stupid...

[the Bush administration had justified the invasion on the grounds that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. 57% of Americans at the time also believed, falsely, that Saddam had played a role in the 9/11 attacks, per Pew.]

https://www.axios.com/2023/03/18/iraq-invasion-anniversary-american-poll-bush-mistake

---

I realize you never read anything about that war outside a 9/11 tower conspiracy site.

---

You thinking Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 is the biggest nut job conspiracy theory of all

[Despite the intelligence community's unequivocal conclusion that Iraq had nothing to do with either 9/11 or al-Qaida, the administration let Americans believe the contrary. Consequently, the United States went to war in Iraq on a false pretense that it was somehow avenging those killed by al-Qaida.]

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/9-11-and-iraq-the-making-of-a-tragedy/#:~:text=Despite%20the%20intelligence%20community's%20unequivocal,those%20killed%20by%20al%2DQaida.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Actually, most of your opinion is that Russia was forced by NATO and more specifically the US into this action.

---

I certainly never said forced. Russia is a sovereign state and has to take responsibility for its own acts. It could of course have not responded at all to a CIA back color revolution on its doorstep.

But I continue to ask how reasonable is it to assume that Moscow will not react with violence to the loss of one of its border states...including one that has millions of ethnic Russians living within its borders and that is host to the strategic Black Sea naval base.

Would the USA accept Canada joining a Communist Chinese military alliance? Of course not

We have to deal with reality.

Pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody undertaking....just like pulling N. Korea out of the Chinese orbit would be.

Were the American people consulted on this issue before DC decided to spend billions on such an endeavor?

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

who has Germany invaded since it joined Nato?
how many countries has Russia invaded since it joined Nato?

I hope you are better at your day job than at foreign policy issues.

---

I hope I don't have to walk you through every post, but here goes. You said Russia was invading other countries during WW2. I pointed out that Germany was doing the same. Germany no longer invades its neighbors, and that's the point. Their actions aren't altogether determined by their military history (which of course is long and illustrious).

More to the original point, unless you're arguing that NATO was always an offensive alliance, its purpose could not have been to keep Russia out of countries that Russia already controlled. Even if Russia were to seize those countries again, the West wouldn't necessarily be in any more danger than it was at the height of NATO's power during the Cold War. That Russia has any intention of doing so is doubtful at best. The idea that they would push all the way to the Atlantic is just plain absurd.

So once you drop the false history and fear-mongering, your case against Russia basically comes down to a few police actions to restore stability to the Russian-speaking diaspora in the near aftermath of the Soviet collapse. At worst it might indicate an ambition to bring them back under Russian control. But that's a vanishingly thin argument for to us risk a conventional war, much less escalation to nuclear war.

---

your first paragraph reframed the argument into a strawman. I talked about "since joining Nato," meaning POST WWII. Ironically, the way you reframe it also proves my point = Nato effectively prevents members from invading others.....because Nato can only move in unison and no member wants to "go it alone" and find itself outside Article 5 eligibility.

your second paragraph is simply absurd. The liberation of the former USSR Republics and former WP countries were a benefit to Nato. The idea that Nato should allow that benefit to lapse back to Cold War positions without contest is just plain goofy.

"...false history and fear mongering...." project much?

---

I addressed your point (actually my point). Germany hasn't invaded its neighbors since WW2. As for the rest, I don't know what world you're living in, but NATO members invade other countries constantly. They just don't do it in Europe.

I'm not arguing that the liberation of Eastern Europe wasn't a benefit, or at least a potential benefit. I'm simply pointing out that your argument makes no sense. The "real reason" for NATO was not to defend the USSR and the WP against the USSR and the WP.

---

Nato has not invaded anyone to forcibly expanded its membership.

---

Giving us "a thimble to dance on," in your own eloquent words. And how you do dance...day after day.

---

A thimble the size of Eurasia, which is the theater where Nato has not invaded anyone to expand its non-compulsory alliance.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

who has Germany invaded since it joined Nato?
how many countries has Russia invaded since it joined Nato?

I hope you are better at your day job than at foreign policy issues.

---

I hope I don't have to walk you through every post, but here goes. You said Russia was invading other countries during WW2. I pointed out that Germany was doing the same. Germany no longer invades its neighbors, and that's the point. Their actions aren't altogether determined by their military history (which of course is long and illustrious).

More to the original point, unless you're arguing that NATO was always an offensive alliance, its purpose could not have been to keep Russia out of countries that Russia already controlled. Even if Russia were to seize those countries again, the West wouldn't necessarily be in any more danger than it was at the height of NATO's power during the Cold War. That Russia has any intention of doing so is doubtful at best. The idea that they would push all the way to the Atlantic is just plain absurd.

So once you drop the false history and fear-mongering, your case against Russia basically comes down to a few police actions to restore stability to the Russian-speaking diaspora in the near aftermath of the Soviet collapse. At worst it might indicate an ambition to bring them back under Russian control. But that's a vanishingly thin argument for to us risk a conventional war, much less escalation to nuclear war.

---

your first paragraph reframed the argument into a strawman. I talked about "since joining Nato," meaning POST WWII. Ironically, the way you reframe it also proves my point = Nato effectively prevents members from invading others.....because Nato can only move in unison and no member wants to "go it alone" and find itself outside Article 5 eligibility.

your second paragraph is simply absurd. The liberation of the former USSR Republics and former WP countries were a benefit to Nato. The idea that Nato should allow that benefit to lapse back to Cold War positions without contest is just plain goofy.

"...false history and fear mongering...." project much?

---

I addressed your point (actually my point). Germany hasn't invaded its neighbors since WW2. As for the rest, I don't know what world you're living in, but NATO members invade other countries constantly. They just don't do it in Europe.

I'm not arguing that the liberation of Eastern Europe wasn't a benefit, or at least a potential benefit. I'm simply pointing out that your argument makes no sense. The "real reason" for NATO was not to defend the USSR and the WP against the USSR and the WP.

---

Nato has not invaded anyone to forcibly expanded its membership.

---

Giving us "a thimble to dance on," in your own eloquent words. And how you do dance...day after day.

---

A thimble the size of Eurasia, which is the theater where Nato has not invaded anyone to expand its non-compulsory alliance.

---

Leaving aside the fact that we all know DC spends a lot of money through formal & informal channels to influence countries to join that alliance....I am still interested in why its worth expanding.

How does bringing in a place like Georgia actually help the American people? Or strengthen the NATO military alliance?

I'm sure the little Comoros islands might want to join NATO...but should we let them? How would it be to our benefit?

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Somehow in your tiny brain you think something the US does justifies Russia murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

DC did not just invade Iraq. And the invasion happened from a continuous series of threats to attack US interests including our homeland. The invasion was 100% warranted

---

True...we invaded a lot of other places in the 20th century as well...I don't remember you crying about that.

And the invasion of Iraq killed somewhere between 250,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqis.....that is a lot of death and a lot of innocent people killed.

You obviously think the Iraq invasion was justified....well guess what bucko....Moscow thinks its Ukraine invasion is justified.

Both DC and Moscow violate international norms when they want....sadly.

---

How many pro-hamas/anti-us rallies do you attend a week?

---

You're the liberal internationalist on here…so you tell me.

I'm not interested in supporting either side of a Semitic blood fueled on the other side of the planet.

---

The only thing you could point out liberal about me was I hurt your Russian feelings

---

I only have American feelings there little guy

You should try putting America first for a change before some other foreign country like Ukraine or Israel

---

you should try not putting Russia first......

---

Name me one way I have ever "put Russia first"

Advocating for less wasteful spending and a more rational foreign policy is in the interest of America and the American people first and foremost

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Actually, most of your opinion is that Russia was forced by NATO and more specifically the US into this action.

---

I certainly never said forced. Russia is a sovereign state and has to take responsibility for its own acts. It could of course have not responded at all to a CIA back color revolution on its doorstep.

But I continue to ask how reasonable is it to assume that Moscow will not react with violence to the loss of one of its border states...including one that has millions of ethnic Russians living within its borders and that is host to the strategic Black Sea naval base.

Would the USA accept Canada joining a Communist Chinese military alliance? Of course not

We have to deal with reality.

Pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody undertaking....just like pulling N. Korea out of the Chinese orbit would be.

Were the American people consulted on this issue before DC decided to spend billions on such an endeavor?

---

Are you suggesting we run Foreign Policy by Referendum?

React to the loss... It was Russia's idea, see Boris Yeltsin. Putin is coming in a decade later and saying we don't like it. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Are you saying that the US should have said no to Yeltsin and not supported the breakup? Everyone agrees, making the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was a mistake. Ukraine should been left with enough to defend themselves, but we get back to Yeltsin.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Actually, most of your opinion is that Russia was forced by NATO and more specifically the US into this action.

---

I certainly never said forced. Russia is a sovereign state and has to take responsibility for its own acts. It could of course have not responded at all to a CIA back color revolution on its doorstep.

But I continue to ask how reasonable is it to assume that Moscow will not react with violence to the loss of one of its border states...including one that has millions of ethnic Russians living within its borders and that is host to the strategic Black Sea naval base.

Would the USA accept Canada joining a Communist Chinese military alliance? Of course not

We have to deal with reality.

Pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody undertaking....just like pulling N. Korea out of the Chinese orbit would be.

Were the American people consulted on this issue before DC decided to spend billions on such an endeavor?

---

Are you suggesting we run Foreign Policy by Referendum?

---

It would be nice just to have a national conversation about it.

Instead of major decisions that affect us all being made a very small clique of neocons and liberal interventionists in DC

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Actually, most of your opinion is that Russia was forced by NATO and more specifically the US into this action.

---

I certainly never said forced. Russia is a sovereign state and has to take responsibility for its own acts. It could of course have not responded at all to a CIA back color revolution on its doorstep.

But I continue to ask how reasonable is it to assume that Moscow will not react with violence to the loss of one of its border states...including one that has millions of ethnic Russians living within its borders and that is host to the strategic Black Sea naval base.

Would the USA accept Canada joining a Communist Chinese military alliance? Of course not

We have to deal with reality.

Pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody undertaking....just like pulling N. Korea out of the Chinese orbit would be.

Were the American people consulted on this issue before DC decided to spend billions on such an endeavor?

---

React to the loss... It was Russia's idea, see Boris Yeltsin. Putin is coming in a decade later and saying we don't like it. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Are you saying that the US should have said no to Yeltsin and not supported the breakup? Everyone agrees, making the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was a mistake. Ukraine should been left with enough to defend themselves, but we get back to Yeltsin.

---

You tenaciously stick to the losing argument that Ukraine giving up its nukes means the USA has to fight a proxy war with russia decades later.

1. Time and again I have shown you that the Budapest Memorandum was not a security treaty made NO demands on the USA to militarily intervene on behalf of Ukraine.

2. Memorandum or no Memorandum....Ukrainian officials already wanted to get rid of the nukes because they were far too expensive for Ukraine (and apparently they did not have the codes anyway-Russia did)

[Ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents:

Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the nearly 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, many of them on intercontinental ballistic missiles that were nearing the end of their service lives. (My own reporting from several years ago, not reflected in these documents, indicates that Moscow retained command and control over the ICBMs, though Ukrainian officers could have fired the shorter-range nuclear missiles on their soil.)

Kravchuk and almost all Ukrainian politicians were eager to dispose of the weapons, fearing that their nuclear cores might melt down in a manner reminiscent of the Chernobyl power-plant disaster, which had occurred in Ukraine just eight years earlier. Everyone involved the presidents, the diplomats who spent months negotiating the precise terms, and British officials, who later signed the deal as well viewed it as mainly a measure to promote nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate had recently passed a bill named for its sponsors, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican Richard Lugar to pay for the cleanup and dismantlement of nuclear weapons throughout the former Soviet Union. (The deal signed in January 1994 provided "a minimum" of $175 million to Ukraine for this purpose.) Also, the U.S. and Russia were negotiating the SALT II arms-control treaty, which would require the elimination of the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs inside Ukraine.]


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents-russia-putin-war.html

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Actually, most of your opinion is that Russia was forced by NATO and more specifically the US into this action.

---

I certainly never said forced. Russia is a sovereign state and has to take responsibility for its own acts. It could of course have not responded at all to a CIA back color revolution on its doorstep.

But I continue to ask how reasonable is it to assume that Moscow will not react with violence to the loss of one of its border states...including one that has millions of ethnic Russians living within its borders and that is host to the strategic Black Sea naval base.

Would the USA accept Canada joining a Communist Chinese military alliance? Of course not

We have to deal with reality.

Pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody undertaking....just like pulling N. Korea out of the Chinese orbit would be.

Were the American people consulted on this issue before DC decided to spend billions on such an endeavor?

---

React to the loss... It was Russia's idea, see Boris Yeltsin. Putin is coming in a decade later and saying we don't like it. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Are you saying that the US should have said no to Yeltsin and not supported the breakup? Everyone agrees, making the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was a mistake. Ukraine should been left with enough to defend themselves, but we get back to Yeltsin.

---

You tenaciously stick to the losing argument that Ukraine giving up its nukes means the USA has to fight a proxy war with russia decades later.

1. Time and again I have shown you that the Budapest Memorandum was not a security treaty made NO demands on the USA to militarily intervene on behalf of Ukraine.

2. Memorandum or no Memorandum....Ukrainian officials already wanted to get rid of the nukes because they were far too expensive for Ukraine (and apparently they did not have the codes anyway-Russia did)

[Ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents:

Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the nearly 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, many of them on intercontinental ballistic missiles that were nearing the end of their service lives. (My own reporting from several years ago, not reflected in these documents, indicates that Moscow retained command and control over the ICBMs, though Ukrainian officers could have fired the shorter-range nuclear missiles on their soil.)

Kravchuk and almost all Ukrainian politicians were eager to dispose of the weapons, fearing that their nuclear cores might melt down in a manner reminiscent of the Chernobyl power-plant disaster, which had occurred in Ukraine just eight years earlier. Everyone involved the presidents, the diplomats who spent months negotiating the precise terms, and British officials, who later signed the deal as well viewed it as mainly a measure to promote nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate had recently passed a bill named for its sponsors, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican Richard Lugar to pay for the cleanup and dismantlement of nuclear weapons throughout the former Soviet Union. (The deal signed in January 1994 provided "a minimum" of $175 million to Ukraine for this purpose.) Also, the U.S. and Russia were negotiating the SALT II arms-control treaty, which would require the elimination of the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs inside Ukraine.]


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents-russia-putin-war.html

---

WHAT PROXY WAR! The US is supplying weapons that Ukraine is asking for to defend themselves. Like it or not, Zelensky is the Ukrainian Govt. This is not supplying the Mujahideen to attack someone else. This is a Nation defending themselves. You don't get that. I guess it is because focus groups and surveys mean more than actual being in power.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Actually, most of your opinion is that Russia was forced by NATO and more specifically the US into this action.

---

I certainly never said forced. Russia is a sovereign state and has to take responsibility for its own acts. It could of course have not responded at all to a CIA back color revolution on its doorstep.

But I continue to ask how reasonable is it to assume that Moscow will not react with violence to the loss of one of its border states...including one that has millions of ethnic Russians living within its borders and that is host to the strategic Black Sea naval base.

Would the USA accept Canada joining a Communist Chinese military alliance? Of course not

We have to deal with reality.

Pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody undertaking....just like pulling N. Korea out of the Chinese orbit would be.

Were the American people consulted on this issue before DC decided to spend billions on such an endeavor?

---

React to the loss... It was Russia's idea, see Boris Yeltsin. Putin is coming in a decade later and saying we don't like it. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Are you saying that the US should have said no to Yeltsin and not supported the breakup? Everyone agrees, making the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was a mistake. Ukraine should been left with enough to defend themselves, but we get back to Yeltsin.

---

You tenaciously stick to the losing argument that Ukraine giving up its nukes means the USA has to fight a proxy war with russia decades later.

1. Time and again I have shown you that the Budapest Memorandum was not a security treaty made NO demands on the USA to militarily intervene on behalf of Ukraine.

2. Memorandum or no Memorandum....Ukrainian officials already wanted to get rid of the nukes because they were far too expensive for Ukraine (and apparently they did not have the codes anyway-Russia did)

[Ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents:

Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the nearly 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, many of them on intercontinental ballistic missiles that were nearing the end of their service lives. (My own reporting from several years ago, not reflected in these documents, indicates that Moscow retained command and control over the ICBMs, though Ukrainian officers could have fired the shorter-range nuclear missiles on their soil.)

Kravchuk and almost all Ukrainian politicians were eager to dispose of the weapons, fearing that their nuclear cores might melt down in a manner reminiscent of the Chernobyl power-plant disaster, which had occurred in Ukraine just eight years earlier. Everyone involved the presidents, the diplomats who spent months negotiating the precise terms, and British officials, who later signed the deal as well viewed it as mainly a measure to promote nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate had recently passed a bill named for its sponsors, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican Richard Lugar to pay for the cleanup and dismantlement of nuclear weapons throughout the former Soviet Union. (The deal signed in January 1994 provided "a minimum" of $175 million to Ukraine for this purpose.) Also, the U.S. and Russia were negotiating the SALT II arms-control treaty, which would require the elimination of the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs inside Ukraine.]


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents-russia-putin-war.html

---

WHAT PROXY WAR! The US is supplying weapons that Ukraine is asking for to defend themselves. Like it or not, Zelensky is the Ukrainian Govt. This is not supplying the Mujahideen to attack someone else. This is a Nation defending themselves. You don't get that. I guess it is because focus groups and surveys mean more than actual being in power.

---

Technically the Mujahideen were defending themselves from a Soviet invasion.

We were just giving them money and weapons to defend themselves and repel and invasion.

It was still a proxy war of course. (we saw the opportunity to repay the Communists in Moscow for Vietnam)

You might be the first person on here ot argue that this is somehow NOT a proxy war begin waged.

At least Whiterock and Trey admit as much and argue that the proxy war is in our geo-strategic and economic interests (I disagree but can see where they are coming from)

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Actually, most of your opinion is that Russia was forced by NATO and more specifically the US into this action.

---

I certainly never said forced. Russia is a sovereign state and has to take responsibility for its own acts. It could of course have not responded at all to a CIA back color revolution on its doorstep.

But I continue to ask how reasonable is it to assume that Moscow will not react with violence to the loss of one of its border states...including one that has millions of ethnic Russians living within its borders and that is host to the strategic Black Sea naval base.

Would the USA accept Canada joining a Communist Chinese military alliance? Of course not

We have to deal with reality.

Pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody undertaking....just like pulling N. Korea out of the Chinese orbit would be.

Were the American people consulted on this issue before DC decided to spend billions on such an endeavor?

---

React to the loss... It was Russia's idea, see Boris Yeltsin. Putin is coming in a decade later and saying we don't like it. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Are you saying that the US should have said no to Yeltsin and not supported the breakup? Everyone agrees, making the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was a mistake. Ukraine should been left with enough to defend themselves, but we get back to Yeltsin.

---

You tenaciously stick to the losing argument that Ukraine giving up its nukes means the USA has to fight a proxy war with russia decades later.

1. Time and again I have shown you that the Budapest Memorandum was not a security treaty made NO demands on the USA to militarily intervene on behalf of Ukraine.

2. Memorandum or no Memorandum....Ukrainian officials already wanted to get rid of the nukes because they were far too expensive for Ukraine (and apparently they did not have the codes anyway-Russia did)

[Ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents:

Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the nearly 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, many of them on intercontinental ballistic missiles that were nearing the end of their service lives. (My own reporting from several years ago, not reflected in these documents, indicates that Moscow retained command and control over the ICBMs, though Ukrainian officers could have fired the shorter-range nuclear missiles on their soil.)

Kravchuk and almost all Ukrainian politicians were eager to dispose of the weapons, fearing that their nuclear cores might melt down in a manner reminiscent of the Chernobyl power-plant disaster, which had occurred in Ukraine just eight years earlier. Everyone involved the presidents, the diplomats who spent months negotiating the precise terms, and British officials, who later signed the deal as well viewed it as mainly a measure to promote nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate had recently passed a bill named for its sponsors, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican Richard Lugar to pay for the cleanup and dismantlement of nuclear weapons throughout the former Soviet Union. (The deal signed in January 1994 provided "a minimum" of $175 million to Ukraine for this purpose.) Also, the U.S. and Russia were negotiating the SALT II arms-control treaty, which would require the elimination of the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs inside Ukraine.]


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents-russia-putin-war.html

---

WHAT PROXY WAR! The US is supplying weapons that Ukraine is asking for to defend themselves. Like it or not, Zelensky is the Ukrainian Govt. This is not supplying the Mujahideen to attack someone else. This is a Nation defending themselves. You don't get that. I guess it is because focus groups and surveys mean more than actual being in power.

---

Technically the Mujahideen were defending themselves from a Soviet invasion.

We were just giving them money and weapons to defend themselves and repel and invasion.

It was still a proxy war of course. (we saw the opportunity to repay the Communists in Moscow for Vietnam)

You might be the first person on here ot argue that this is somehow NOT a proxy war begin waged.

At least Whiterock and Trey admit as much and argue that the proxy war is in our geo-strategic and economic interests (I disagree but can see where they are coming from)

---

Did Russia Invade?

How can you have a proxy war against someone that invades a Nation, they are in the wrong. This is no proxy war designed to weaken Russia that was thought up in Langley. This is an out and out war. Ukraine is defending their Nation and we are supplying weapons.

proxy war (Oxford)

[prks wr]
noun
[ol]

a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved:

[/ol]
proxy war (Cambridge)
noun [ C ]
US /prk.si wr/ UK /prk.si wr/
Add to word list
a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers, and may have help and support from these:


This is not a proxy war. I guess you can change the definition to fit the narrative. Hell, the media did. So why shouldn't you.

Just because something is advantageous does not make it a Proxy War. Nobody instigated this but Russia.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Actually, most of your opinion is that Russia was forced by NATO and more specifically the US into this action.

---

I certainly never said forced. Russia is a sovereign state and has to take responsibility for its own acts. It could of course have not responded at all to a CIA back color revolution on its doorstep.

But I continue to ask how reasonable is it to assume that Moscow will not react with violence to the loss of one of its border states...including one that has millions of ethnic Russians living within its borders and that is host to the strategic Black Sea naval base.

Would the USA accept Canada joining a Communist Chinese military alliance? Of course not

We have to deal with reality.

Pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody undertaking....just like pulling N. Korea out of the Chinese orbit would be.

Were the American people consulted on this issue before DC decided to spend billions on such an endeavor?

---

React to the loss... It was Russia's idea, see Boris Yeltsin. Putin is coming in a decade later and saying we don't like it. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Are you saying that the US should have said no to Yeltsin and not supported the breakup? Everyone agrees, making the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was a mistake. Ukraine should been left with enough to defend themselves, but we get back to Yeltsin.

---

You tenaciously stick to the losing argument that Ukraine giving up its nukes means the USA has to fight a proxy war with russia decades later.

1. Time and again I have shown you that the Budapest Memorandum was not a security treaty made NO demands on the USA to militarily intervene on behalf of Ukraine.

2. Memorandum or no Memorandum....Ukrainian officials already wanted to get rid of the nukes because they were far too expensive for Ukraine (and apparently they did not have the codes anyway-Russia did)

[Ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents:

Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the nearly 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, many of them on intercontinental ballistic missiles that were nearing the end of their service lives. (My own reporting from several years ago, not reflected in these documents, indicates that Moscow retained command and control over the ICBMs, though Ukrainian officers could have fired the shorter-range nuclear missiles on their soil.)

Kravchuk and almost all Ukrainian politicians were eager to dispose of the weapons, fearing that their nuclear cores might melt down in a manner reminiscent of the Chernobyl power-plant disaster, which had occurred in Ukraine just eight years earlier. Everyone involved the presidents, the diplomats who spent months negotiating the precise terms, and British officials, who later signed the deal as well viewed it as mainly a measure to promote nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate had recently passed a bill named for its sponsors, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican Richard Lugar to pay for the cleanup and dismantlement of nuclear weapons throughout the former Soviet Union. (The deal signed in January 1994 provided "a minimum" of $175 million to Ukraine for this purpose.) Also, the U.S. and Russia were negotiating the SALT II arms-control treaty, which would require the elimination of the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs inside Ukraine.]


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents-russia-putin-war.html

---

WHAT PROXY WAR! The US is supplying weapons that Ukraine is asking for to defend themselves. Like it or not, Zelensky is the Ukrainian Govt. This is not supplying the Mujahideen to attack someone else. This is a Nation defending themselves. You don't get that. I guess it is because focus groups and surveys mean more than actual being in power.

---

Technically the Mujahideen were defending themselves from a Soviet invasion.

We were just giving them money and weapons to defend themselves and repel and invasion.

It was still a proxy war of course. (we saw the opportunity to repay the Communists in Moscow for Vietnam)

You might be the first person on here ot argue that this is somehow NOT a proxy war begin waged.

At least Whiterock and Trey admit as much and argue that the proxy war is in our geo-strategic and economic interests (I disagree but can see where they are coming from)

---

Did Russia Invade?

How can you have a proxy war against someone that invades a Nation, they are in the wrong. This is no proxy war designed to weaken Russia that was thought up in Langley. This is an out and out war. Ukraine is defending their Nation and we are supplying weapons.

proxy war (Oxford)

[prks wr]
noun
[ol]

a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved:

[/ol]
proxy war (Cambridge)
noun [ C ]
US /prk.si wr/ UK /prk.si wr/
Add to word list
a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers, and may have help and support from these:


This is not a proxy war. I guess you can change the definition to fit the narrative. Hell, the media did. So why shouldn't you.

---

Only if you rely heavily on the word "instigate"

The USSR did not instigate the Vietnam war. But did they not use it as a proxy war against the USA?

The USA did not instigate the Afghan-Soviet war. But did the US not use it as proxy war against the USSR?

For instance from the very link above....

"the end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars through which the two sides struggled to exert their influence"

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Actually, most of your opinion is that Russia was forced by NATO and more specifically the US into this action.

---

I certainly never said forced. Russia is a sovereign state and has to take responsibility for its own acts. It could of course have not responded at all to a CIA back color revolution on its doorstep.

But I continue to ask how reasonable is it to assume that Moscow will not react with violence to the loss of one of its border states...including one that has millions of ethnic Russians living within its borders and that is host to the strategic Black Sea naval base.

Would the USA accept Canada joining a Communist Chinese military alliance? Of course not

We have to deal with reality.

Pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody undertaking....just like pulling N. Korea out of the Chinese orbit would be.

Were the American people consulted on this issue before DC decided to spend billions on such an endeavor?

---

React to the loss... It was Russia's idea, see Boris Yeltsin. Putin is coming in a decade later and saying we don't like it. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Are you saying that the US should have said no to Yeltsin and not supported the breakup? Everyone agrees, making the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was a mistake. Ukraine should been left with enough to defend themselves, but we get back to Yeltsin.

---

You tenaciously stick to the losing argument that Ukraine giving up its nukes means the USA has to fight a proxy war with russia decades later.

1. Time and again I have shown you that the Budapest Memorandum was not a security treaty made NO demands on the USA to militarily intervene on behalf of Ukraine.

2. Memorandum or no Memorandum....Ukrainian officials already wanted to get rid of the nukes because they were far too expensive for Ukraine (and apparently they did not have the codes anyway-Russia did)

[Ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents:

Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the nearly 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, many of them on intercontinental ballistic missiles that were nearing the end of their service lives. (My own reporting from several years ago, not reflected in these documents, indicates that Moscow retained command and control over the ICBMs, though Ukrainian officers could have fired the shorter-range nuclear missiles on their soil.)

Kravchuk and almost all Ukrainian politicians were eager to dispose of the weapons, fearing that their nuclear cores might melt down in a manner reminiscent of the Chernobyl power-plant disaster, which had occurred in Ukraine just eight years earlier. Everyone involved the presidents, the diplomats who spent months negotiating the precise terms, and British officials, who later signed the deal as well viewed it as mainly a measure to promote nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate had recently passed a bill named for its sponsors, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican Richard Lugar to pay for the cleanup and dismantlement of nuclear weapons throughout the former Soviet Union. (The deal signed in January 1994 provided "a minimum" of $175 million to Ukraine for this purpose.) Also, the U.S. and Russia were negotiating the SALT II arms-control treaty, which would require the elimination of the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs inside Ukraine.]


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents-russia-putin-war.html

---

WHAT PROXY WAR! The US is supplying weapons that Ukraine is asking for to defend themselves. Like it or not, Zelensky is the Ukrainian Govt. This is not supplying the Mujahideen to attack someone else. This is a Nation defending themselves. You don't get that. I guess it is because focus groups and surveys mean more than actual being in power.

---

Technically the Mujahideen were defending themselves from a Soviet invasion.

We were just giving them money and weapons to defend themselves and repel and invasion.

It was still a proxy war of course. (we saw the opportunity to repay the Communists in Moscow for Vietnam)

You might be the first person on here ot argue that this is somehow NOT a proxy war begin waged.

At least Whiterock and Trey admit as much and argue that the proxy war is in our geo-strategic and economic interests (I disagree but can see where they are coming from)

---

Did Russia Invade?

How can you have a proxy war against someone that invades a Nation, they are in the wrong. This is no proxy war designed to weaken Russia that was thought up in Langley. This is an out and out war. Ukraine is defending their Nation and we are supplying weapons.

proxy war (Oxford)

[prks wr]
noun
[ol]

a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved:

[/ol]
proxy war (Cambridge)
noun [ C ]
US /prk.si wr/ UK /prk.si wr/
Add to word list
a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers, and may have help and support from these:


This is not a proxy war. I guess you can change the definition to fit the narrative. Hell, the media did. So why shouldn't you.

---

Only if you rely heavily on the word "instigate"

The USSR did not instigate the Vietnam war. But did they not use it as a proxy war against the USA?

The USA did not instigate the Afghan-Soviet war. But did the US not use it as proxy war against the USSR?

For instance from the very link above....

"the end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars through which the two sides struggled to exert their influence"

---

But, that is THE important word. The term Proxy War, implies that the US was involved in creating it to avoid culpability. The US didn't. If Russia doesn't invade, the US does nothing. Same with Afghanistan in the 80's, Soviets don't invade, US doesn't give a dime to the Mujahedeen. No instigation, no planning.

By your definition any time a Nation is opportunistic OR an action supporting a Nation at war benefits them it is a Proxy War. Proxy War is a negative term.

(By the way, Russia was in Viet Nam since 54. They played a role in the North/South partition.)

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Actually, most of your opinion is that Russia was forced by NATO and more specifically the US into this action.

---

I certainly never said forced. Russia is a sovereign state and has to take responsibility for its own acts. It could of course have not responded at all to a CIA back color revolution on its doorstep.

But I continue to ask how reasonable is it to assume that Moscow will not react with violence to the loss of one of its border states...including one that has millions of ethnic Russians living within its borders and that is host to the strategic Black Sea naval base.

Would the USA accept Canada joining a Communist Chinese military alliance? Of course not

We have to deal with reality.

Pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody undertaking....just like pulling N. Korea out of the Chinese orbit would be.

Were the American people consulted on this issue before DC decided to spend billions on such an endeavor?

---

React to the loss... It was Russia's idea, see Boris Yeltsin. Putin is coming in a decade later and saying we don't like it. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Are you saying that the US should have said no to Yeltsin and not supported the breakup? Everyone agrees, making the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was a mistake. Ukraine should been left with enough to defend themselves, but we get back to Yeltsin.

---

You tenaciously stick to the losing argument that Ukraine giving up its nukes means the USA has to fight a proxy war with russia decades later.

1. Time and again I have shown you that the Budapest Memorandum was not a security treaty made NO demands on the USA to militarily intervene on behalf of Ukraine.

2. Memorandum or no Memorandum....Ukrainian officials already wanted to get rid of the nukes because they were far too expensive for Ukraine (and apparently they did not have the codes anyway-Russia did)

[Ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents:

Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the nearly 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, many of them on intercontinental ballistic missiles that were nearing the end of their service lives. (My own reporting from several years ago, not reflected in these documents, indicates that Moscow retained command and control over the ICBMs, though Ukrainian officers could have fired the shorter-range nuclear missiles on their soil.)

Kravchuk and almost all Ukrainian politicians were eager to dispose of the weapons, fearing that their nuclear cores might melt down in a manner reminiscent of the Chernobyl power-plant disaster, which had occurred in Ukraine just eight years earlier. Everyone involved the presidents, the diplomats who spent months negotiating the precise terms, and British officials, who later signed the deal as well viewed it as mainly a measure to promote nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate had recently passed a bill named for its sponsors, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican Richard Lugar to pay for the cleanup and dismantlement of nuclear weapons throughout the former Soviet Union. (The deal signed in January 1994 provided "a minimum" of $175 million to Ukraine for this purpose.) Also, the U.S. and Russia were negotiating the SALT II arms-control treaty, which would require the elimination of the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs inside Ukraine.]


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents-russia-putin-war.html

---

WHAT PROXY WAR! The US is supplying weapons that Ukraine is asking for to defend themselves. Like it or not, Zelensky is the Ukrainian Govt. This is not supplying the Mujahideen to attack someone else. This is a Nation defending themselves. You don't get that. I guess it is because focus groups and surveys mean more than actual being in power.

---

Technically the Mujahideen were defending themselves from a Soviet invasion.

We were just giving them money and weapons to defend themselves and repel and invasion.

It was still a proxy war of course. (we saw the opportunity to repay the Communists in Moscow for Vietnam)

You might be the first person on here ot argue that this is somehow NOT a proxy war begin waged.

At least Whiterock and Trey admit as much and argue that the proxy war is in our geo-strategic and economic interests (I disagree but can see where they are coming from)

---

Did Russia Invade?

How can you have a proxy war against someone that invades a Nation, they are in the wrong. This is no proxy war designed to weaken Russia that was thought up in Langley. This is an out and out war. Ukraine is defending their Nation and we are supplying weapons.

proxy war (Oxford)

[prks wr]
noun
[ol]

a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved:

[/ol]
proxy war (Cambridge)
noun [ C ]
US /prk.si wr/ UK /prk.si wr/
Add to word list
a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers, and may have help and support from these:


This is not a proxy war. I guess you can change the definition to fit the narrative. Hell, the media did. So why shouldn't you.

---

Only if you rely heavily on the word "instigate"

The USSR did not instigate the Vietnam war. But did they not use it as a proxy war against the USA?

The USA did not instigate the Afghan-Soviet war. But did the US not use it as proxy war against the USSR?

For instance from the very link above....

"the end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars through which the two sides struggled to exert their influence"

---

But, that is THE important word. The term Proxy War, implies that the US was involved in creating it to avoid culpability. The US didn't. If Russia doesn't invade, the US does nothing. Same with Afghanistan in the 80's, Soviets don't invade, US doesn't give a dime to the Mujahedeen. No instigation, no planning.

By your definition any time a Nation is opportunistic OR an action supporting a Nation at war benefits them it is a Proxy War. Proxy War is a negative term.

---

Well I guess those a good points.

But I had never heard the Vietnam war described as anything other than a proxy war by the USSR against the USA

Even though the USSR did not instigate the war.

I guess people were using the term incorrectly

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Actually, most of your opinion is that Russia was forced by NATO and more specifically the US into this action.

---

I certainly never said forced. Russia is a sovereign state and has to take responsibility for its own acts. It could of course have not responded at all to a CIA back color revolution on its doorstep.

But I continue to ask how reasonable is it to assume that Moscow will not react with violence to the loss of one of its border states...including one that has millions of ethnic Russians living within its borders and that is host to the strategic Black Sea naval base.

Would the USA accept Canada joining a Communist Chinese military alliance? Of course not

We have to deal with reality.

Pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody undertaking....just like pulling N. Korea out of the Chinese orbit would be.

Were the American people consulted on this issue before DC decided to spend billions on such an endeavor?

---

React to the loss... It was Russia's idea, see Boris Yeltsin. Putin is coming in a decade later and saying we don't like it. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Are you saying that the US should have said no to Yeltsin and not supported the breakup? Everyone agrees, making the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was a mistake. Ukraine should been left with enough to defend themselves, but we get back to Yeltsin.

---

You tenaciously stick to the losing argument that Ukraine giving up its nukes means the USA has to fight a proxy war with russia decades later.

1. Time and again I have shown you that the Budapest Memorandum was not a security treaty made NO demands on the USA to militarily intervene on behalf of Ukraine.

2. Memorandum or no Memorandum....Ukrainian officials already wanted to get rid of the nukes because they were far too expensive for Ukraine (and apparently they did not have the codes anyway-Russia did)

[Ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents:

Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the nearly 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, many of them on intercontinental ballistic missiles that were nearing the end of their service lives. (My own reporting from several years ago, not reflected in these documents, indicates that Moscow retained command and control over the ICBMs, though Ukrainian officers could have fired the shorter-range nuclear missiles on their soil.)

Kravchuk and almost all Ukrainian politicians were eager to dispose of the weapons, fearing that their nuclear cores might melt down in a manner reminiscent of the Chernobyl power-plant disaster, which had occurred in Ukraine just eight years earlier. Everyone involved the presidents, the diplomats who spent months negotiating the precise terms, and British officials, who later signed the deal as well viewed it as mainly a measure to promote nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate had recently passed a bill named for its sponsors, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican Richard Lugar to pay for the cleanup and dismantlement of nuclear weapons throughout the former Soviet Union. (The deal signed in January 1994 provided "a minimum" of $175 million to Ukraine for this purpose.) Also, the U.S. and Russia were negotiating the SALT II arms-control treaty, which would require the elimination of the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs inside Ukraine.]


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents-russia-putin-war.html

---

WHAT PROXY WAR! The US is supplying weapons that Ukraine is asking for to defend themselves. Like it or not, Zelensky is the Ukrainian Govt. This is not supplying the Mujahideen to attack someone else. This is a Nation defending themselves. You don't get that. I guess it is because focus groups and surveys mean more than actual being in power.

---

Technically the Mujahideen were defending themselves from a Soviet invasion.

We were just giving them money and weapons to defend themselves and repel and invasion.

It was still a proxy war of course. (we saw the opportunity to repay the Communists in Moscow for Vietnam)

You might be the first person on here ot argue that this is somehow NOT a proxy war begin waged.

At least Whiterock and Trey admit as much and argue that the proxy war is in our geo-strategic and economic interests (I disagree but can see where they are coming from)

---

Did Russia Invade?

How can you have a proxy war against someone that invades a Nation, they are in the wrong. This is no proxy war designed to weaken Russia that was thought up in Langley. This is an out and out war. Ukraine is defending their Nation and we are supplying weapons.

proxy war (Oxford)

[prks wr]
noun
[ol]

a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved:

[/ol]
proxy war (Cambridge)
noun [ C ]
US /prk.si wr/ UK /prk.si wr/
Add to word list
a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers, and may have help and support from these:


This is not a proxy war. I guess you can change the definition to fit the narrative. Hell, the media did. So why shouldn't you.

---

Only if you rely heavily on the word "instigate"

The USSR did not instigate the Vietnam war. But did they not use it as a proxy war against the USA?

The USA did not instigate the Afghan-Soviet war. But did the US not use it as proxy war against the USSR?

For instance from the very link above....

"the end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars through which the two sides struggled to exert their influence"

---

But, that is THE important word. The term Proxy War, implies that the US was involved in creating it to avoid culpability. The US didn't. If Russia doesn't invade, the US does nothing. Same with Afghanistan in the 80's, Soviets don't invade, US doesn't give a dime to the Mujahedeen. No instigation, no planning.

By your definition any time a Nation is opportunistic OR an action supporting a Nation at war benefits them it is a Proxy War. Proxy War is a negative term.

---

Well I guess those a good points.

But I had never heard the Vietnam war described as anything other than a proxy war by the USSR against the USA

Even though the USSR did not instigate the war.

I guess people were using the term incorrectly

---

I guess it doesn't change life on the ground.

But, from the media point of view framing Ukraine as a Proxy War makes it look like the US was behind this whole action. The US does enough wrong and gets called for it...

When I think Proxy War, Cuba and Bay of Pigs...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. %A0But, what happened? %A0They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. %A0That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. %A0Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. %A0Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. %A0There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. %A0You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. %A0Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise. %A0

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly%85we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. %A0That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. %A0Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Actually, most of your opinion is that Russia was forced by NATO and more specifically the US into this action. %A0

---

I certainly never said forced. %A0Russia is a sovereign state and has to take responsibility for its own acts. %A0It could of course have not responded at all to a CIA back color revolution on its doorstep.

But I continue to ask how reasonable is it to assume that Moscow will not react with violence to the loss of one of its border states...including one that has millions of ethnic Russians living within its borders and that is host to the strategic Black Sea naval base.

Would the USA accept Canada joining a Communist Chinese military alliance? %A0Of course not

We have to deal with reality.

Pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody undertaking....just like pulling N. Korea out of the Chinese orbit would be.

Were the American people consulted on this issue before DC decided to spend billions on such an endeavor?

---

React to the loss... %A0It was Russia's idea, see Boris Yeltsin. %A0Putin is coming in a decade later and saying we don't like it. %A0THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Are you saying that the US should have said no to Yeltsin and not supported the breakup? %A0Everyone agrees, making the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was a mistake. %A0Ukraine should been left with enough to defend themselves, but we get back to Yeltsin.

---

You tenaciously stick to the losing argument that Ukraine giving up its nukes means the USA has to fight a proxy war with russia decades later.

1. %A0Time and again I have shown you that the Budapest Memorandum was not a security treaty made NO demands on the USA to militarily intervene on behalf of Ukraine.

2. %A0Memorandum or no Memorandum....Ukrainian officials already wanted to get rid of the nukes because they were far too expensive for Ukraine (and apparently they did not have the codes anyway-Russia did)

[Ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents:

Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the nearly 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, many of them on intercontinental ballistic missiles that were nearing the end of their service lives. (My own reporting from several years ago, not reflected in these documents, indicates that Moscow retained command and control over the ICBMs, though Ukrainian officers could have fired the shorter-range nuclear missiles on their soil.)

Kravchuk and almost all Ukrainian politicians were eager to dispose of the weapons, fearing that their nuclear cores might melt down in a manner reminiscent of the Chernobyl power-plant disaster, which had occurred in Ukraine just eight years earlier. Everyone involved the presidents, the diplomats who spent months negotiating the precise terms, and British officials, who later signed the deal as well viewed it as mainly a measure to promote nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate had recently passed a bill named for its sponsors, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican Richard Lugar to pay for the cleanup and dismantlement of nuclear weapons throughout the former Soviet Union. (The deal signed in January 1994 provided "a minimum" of $175 million to Ukraine for this purpose.) Also, the U.S. and Russia were negotiating the SALT II arms-control treaty, which would require the elimination of the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs inside Ukraine.]


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents-russia-putin-war.html

---

WHAT PROXY WAR! %A0The US is supplying weapons that Ukraine is asking for to defend themselves. %A0Like it or not, Zelensky is the Ukrainian Govt. %A0This is not supplying the Mujahideen to attack someone else. %A0This is a Nation defending themselves. %A0You don't get that. %A0I guess it is because focus groups and surveys mean more than actual being in power. %A0

---

Technically the Mujahideen were defending themselves from a Soviet invasion.

We were just giving them money and weapons to defend themselves and repel and invasion.

It was still a proxy war of course. (we saw the opportunity to repay the Communists in Moscow for Vietnam)

You might be the first person on here ot argue that this is somehow NOT a proxy war begin waged.

At least Whiterock and Trey admit as much and argue that the proxy war is in our geo-strategic and economic interests (I disagree but can see where they are coming from)

---

Did Russia Invade?

How can you have a proxy war against someone that invades a Nation, they are in the wrong. %A0This is no proxy war designed to weaken Russia that was thought up in Langley. This is an out and out war. %A0Ukraine is defending their Nation and we are supplying weapons. %A0

proxy war (Oxford)

[prks wr]
noun
[ol]

a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved:

[/ol]
proxy war (Cambridge)
noun [ C ]
US %A0/prk.si wr/ UK %A0/prk.si wr/
Add to word list
a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers, and may have help and support from these:


This is not a proxy war. I guess you can change the definition to fit the narrative. Hell, the media did. So why shouldn't you.

---

Only if you rely heavily on the word "instigate"

The USSR did not instigate the Vietnam war. %A0But did they not use it as a proxy war against the USA?

The USA did not instigate the Afghan-Soviet war. %A0But did the US not use it as proxy war against the USSR?

For instance from the very link above....

"the end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars through which the two sides struggled to exert their influence"

---

But, that is THE important word. %A0The term Proxy War, implies that the US was involved in creating it to avoid culpability. %A0 The US didn't. %A0If Russia doesn't invade, the US does nothing. %A0Same with Afghanistan in the 80's, Soviets don't invade, US doesn't give a dime to the Mujahedeen. No instigation, no planning. %A0

By your definition any time a Nation is opportunistic OR an action supporting a Nation at war benefits them it is a Proxy War. %A0Proxy War is a negative term.

---

Well I guess those a good points.

But I had never heard the Vietnam war described as anything other than a proxy war by the USSR against the USA

Even though the USSR did not instigate the war.

I guess people were using the term incorrectly

---

I guess it doesn't change life on the ground. %A0

But, from the media point of view framing Ukraine as a Proxy War makes it look like the US was behind this whole action. The US does enough wrong and gets called for it...

When I think Proxy War, Cuba and Bay of Pigs...

---

If it was a proxy war between US and Russia then Russia would already have surrendered to Ukraine. If anything it is a proxy war between US and China

ron.reagan said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. %A0But, what happened? %A0They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. %A0That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. %A0Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. %A0Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. %A0There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. %A0You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. %A0Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise. %A0

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly%85we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. %A0That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. %A0Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Actually, most of your opinion is that Russia was forced by NATO and more specifically the US into this action. %A0

---

I certainly never said forced. %A0Russia is a sovereign state and has to take responsibility for its own acts. %A0It could of course have not responded at all to a CIA back color revolution on its doorstep.

But I continue to ask how reasonable is it to assume that Moscow will not react with violence to the loss of one of its border states...including one that has millions of ethnic Russians living within its borders and that is host to the strategic Black Sea naval base.

Would the USA accept Canada joining a Communist Chinese military alliance? %A0Of course not

We have to deal with reality.

Pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody undertaking....just like pulling N. Korea out of the Chinese orbit would be.

Were the American people consulted on this issue before DC decided to spend billions on such an endeavor?

---

React to the loss... %A0It was Russia's idea, see Boris Yeltsin. %A0Putin is coming in a decade later and saying we don't like it. %A0THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Are you saying that the US should have said no to Yeltsin and not supported the breakup? %A0Everyone agrees, making the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was a mistake. %A0Ukraine should been left with enough to defend themselves, but we get back to Yeltsin.

---

You tenaciously stick to the losing argument that Ukraine giving up its nukes means the USA has to fight a proxy war with russia decades later.

1. %A0Time and again I have shown you that the Budapest Memorandum was not a security treaty made NO demands on the USA to militarily intervene on behalf of Ukraine.

2. %A0Memorandum or no Memorandum....Ukrainian officials already wanted to get rid of the nukes because they were far too expensive for Ukraine (and apparently they did not have the codes anyway-Russia did)

[Ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents:

Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the nearly 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, many of them on intercontinental ballistic missiles that were nearing the end of their service lives. (My own reporting from several years ago, not reflected in these documents, indicates that Moscow retained command and control over the ICBMs, though Ukrainian officers could have fired the shorter-range nuclear missiles on their soil.)

Kravchuk and almost all Ukrainian politicians were eager to dispose of the weapons, fearing that their nuclear cores might melt down in a manner reminiscent of the Chernobyl power-plant disaster, which had occurred in Ukraine just eight years earlier. Everyone involved the presidents, the diplomats who spent months negotiating the precise terms, and British officials, who later signed the deal as well viewed it as mainly a measure to promote nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate had recently passed a bill named for its sponsors, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican Richard Lugar to pay for the cleanup and dismantlement of nuclear weapons throughout the former Soviet Union. (The deal signed in January 1994 provided "a minimum" of $175 million to Ukraine for this purpose.) Also, the U.S. and Russia were negotiating the SALT II arms-control treaty, which would require the elimination of the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs inside Ukraine.]


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents-russia-putin-war.html

---

WHAT PROXY WAR! %A0The US is supplying weapons that Ukraine is asking for to defend themselves. %A0Like it or not, Zelensky is the Ukrainian Govt. %A0This is not supplying the Mujahideen to attack someone else. %A0This is a Nation defending themselves. %A0You don't get that. %A0I guess it is because focus groups and surveys mean more than actual being in power. %A0

---

Technically the Mujahideen were defending themselves from a Soviet invasion.

We were just giving them money and weapons to defend themselves and repel and invasion.

It was still a proxy war of course. (we saw the opportunity to repay the Communists in Moscow for Vietnam)

You might be the first person on here ot argue that this is somehow NOT a proxy war begin waged.

At least Whiterock and Trey admit as much and argue that the proxy war is in our geo-strategic and economic interests (I disagree but can see where they are coming from)

---

Did Russia Invade?

How can you have a proxy war against someone that invades a Nation, they are in the wrong. %A0This is no proxy war designed to weaken Russia that was thought up in Langley. This is an out and out war. %A0Ukraine is defending their Nation and we are supplying weapons. %A0

proxy war (Oxford)

[prks wr]
noun
[ol]

a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved:

[/ol]
proxy war (Cambridge)
noun [ C ]
US %A0/prk.si wr/ UK %A0/prk.si wr/
Add to word list
a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers, and may have help and support from these:


This is not a proxy war. I guess you can change the definition to fit the narrative. Hell, the media did. So why shouldn't you.

---

Only if you rely heavily on the word "instigate"

The USSR did not instigate the Vietnam war. %A0But did they not use it as a proxy war against the USA?

The USA did not instigate the Afghan-Soviet war. %A0But did the US not use it as proxy war against the USSR?

For instance from the very link above....

"the end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars through which the two sides struggled to exert their influence"

---

But, that is THE important word. %A0The term Proxy War, implies that the US was involved in creating it to avoid culpability. %A0 The US didn't. %A0If Russia doesn't invade, the US does nothing. %A0Same with Afghanistan in the 80's, Soviets don't invade, US doesn't give a dime to the Mujahedeen. No instigation, no planning. %A0

By your definition any time a Nation is opportunistic OR an action supporting a Nation at war benefits them it is a Proxy War. %A0Proxy War is a negative term.

---

Well I guess those a good points.

But I had never heard the Vietnam war described as anything other than a proxy war by the USSR against the USA

Even though the USSR did not instigate the war.

I guess people were using the term incorrectly

---

I guess it doesn't change life on the ground. %A0

But, from the media point of view framing Ukraine as a Proxy War makes it look like the US was behind this whole action. The US does enough wrong and gets called for it...

When I think Proxy War, Cuba and Bay of Pigs...

---

If it was a proxy war between US and Russia then Russia would already have surrendered to Ukraine. If anything it is a proxy war between US and China

---

I can't disagree with you on this one. I fear you are right.

I actually wish Biden's team was that creative... That would make some sense, if there was a downside for China somewhere in this mess!

Is this accurate?

🚨Update: Moscow is planning to deploy nuclear ICBMs to Cuba, Mexico, and Venezuela, in response to NATO deploying nuclear weapons to Eastern Europe!!

- Russian TV pic.twitter.com/sKqVlRbPBC

— US Civil Defense News (@CaptCoronado) June 10, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Actually, most of your opinion is that Russia was forced by NATO and more specifically the US into this action.

---

I certainly never said forced. Russia is a sovereign state and has to take responsibility for its own acts. It could of course have not responded at all to a CIA back color revolution on its doorstep.

But I continue to ask how reasonable is it to assume that Moscow will not react with violence to the loss of one of its border states...including one that has millions of ethnic Russians living within its borders and that is host to the strategic Black Sea naval base.

Would the USA accept Canada joining a Communist Chinese military alliance? Of course not

We have to deal with reality.

Pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody undertaking....just like pulling N. Korea out of the Chinese orbit would be.

Were the American people consulted on this issue before DC decided to spend billions on such an endeavor?

---

React to the loss... It was Russia's idea, see Boris Yeltsin. Putin is coming in a decade later and saying we don't like it. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Are you saying that the US should have said no to Yeltsin and not supported the breakup? Everyone agrees, making the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was a mistake. Ukraine should been left with enough to defend themselves, but we get back to Yeltsin.

---

You tenaciously stick to the losing argument that Ukraine giving up its nukes means the USA has to fight a proxy war with russia decades later.

1. Time and again I have shown you that the Budapest Memorandum was not a security treaty made NO demands on the USA to militarily intervene on behalf of Ukraine.

2. Memorandum or no Memorandum....Ukrainian officials already wanted to get rid of the nukes because they were far too expensive for Ukraine (and apparently they did not have the codes anyway-Russia did)

[Ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents:

Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the nearly 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, many of them on intercontinental ballistic missiles that were nearing the end of their service lives. (My own reporting from several years ago, not reflected in these documents, indicates that Moscow retained command and control over the ICBMs, though Ukrainian officers could have fired the shorter-range nuclear missiles on their soil.)

Kravchuk and almost all Ukrainian politicians were eager to dispose of the weapons, fearing that their nuclear cores might melt down in a manner reminiscent of the Chernobyl power-plant disaster, which had occurred in Ukraine just eight years earlier. Everyone involved the presidents, the diplomats who spent months negotiating the precise terms, and British officials, who later signed the deal as well viewed it as mainly a measure to promote nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate had recently passed a bill named for its sponsors, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican Richard Lugar to pay for the cleanup and dismantlement of nuclear weapons throughout the former Soviet Union. (The deal signed in January 1994 provided "a minimum" of $175 million to Ukraine for this purpose.) Also, the U.S. and Russia were negotiating the SALT II arms-control treaty, which would require the elimination of the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs inside Ukraine.]


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents-russia-putin-war.html

---

WHAT PROXY WAR! The US is supplying weapons that Ukraine is asking for to defend themselves. Like it or not, Zelensky is the Ukrainian Govt. This is not supplying the Mujahideen to attack someone else. This is a Nation defending themselves. You don't get that. I guess it is because focus groups and surveys mean more than actual being in power.

---

Technically the Mujahideen were defending themselves from a Soviet invasion.

We were just giving them money and weapons to defend themselves and repel and invasion.

It was still a proxy war of course. (we saw the opportunity to repay the Communists in Moscow for Vietnam)

You might be the first person on here ot argue that this is somehow NOT a proxy war begin waged.

At least Whiterock and Trey admit as much and argue that the proxy war is in our geo-strategic and economic interests (I disagree but can see where they are coming from)

---

Did Russia Invade?

How can you have a proxy war against someone that invades a Nation, they are in the wrong. This is no proxy war designed to weaken Russia that was thought up in Langley. This is an out and out war. Ukraine is defending their Nation and we are supplying weapons.

proxy war (Oxford)

[prks wr]
noun
[ol]

a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved:

[/ol]
proxy war (Cambridge)
noun [ C ]
US /prk.si wr/ UK /prk.si wr/
Add to word list
a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers, and may have help and support from these:


This is not a proxy war. I guess you can change the definition to fit the narrative. Hell, the media did. So why shouldn't you.

---

Only if you rely heavily on the word "instigate"

The USSR did not instigate the Vietnam war. But did they not use it as a proxy war against the USA?

The USA did not instigate the Afghan-Soviet war. But did the US not use it as proxy war against the USSR?

For instance from the very link above....

"the end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars through which the two sides struggled to exert their influence"

---

agreed. the word "instigate" is not a proper condition.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

How many pro-hamas/anti-us rallies do you attend a week?

---

You're the liberal internationalist on here…so you tell me.

I'm not interested in supporting either side of a Semitic blood fueled on the other side of the planet.

---

The only thing you could point out liberal about me was I hurt your Russian feelings

---

I only have American feelings there little guy

You should try putting America first for a change before some other foreign country like Ukraine or Israel

---

you should try not putting Russia first......

---

Name me one way I have ever "put Russia first"

Advocating for less wasteful spending and a more rational foreign policy is in the interest of America and the American people first and foremost

---

Russia invades Ukraine to subsume it in entirety? It's the natural order of things.
We send help to Ukraine? it's empire!

The Maidan protests weren't caused by Russian interference in Ukrainian politics (to reject an EU bill passed by the Ukrainian Parliament that he'd promised for years to sign). Oh no. It was caused by interference from Victoria Nuland.

Yanukovich signs an agreement with the political opposition to end the Maiden, then flees the country. the Ukrainian Parliament then formally removes him from office and forms an interim government followed by elections. You describe the whole thing as a CIA-led coup d'etat.

I could go on a bit. Russia can do no wrong in Ukraine, and we have a moral obligation to let them.

---

Seems a right. Russia didn't like a phone call in 2012, so they get to do whatever they want in Ukraine. That call voided all agreements, sorry Ukraine, Baltics, Poland and Romania please set things back to1989. It will keep Putin happy.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

How many pro-hamas/anti-us rallies do you attend a week?

---

You're the liberal internationalist on here…so you tell me.

I'm not interested in supporting either side of a Semitic blood fueled on the other side of the planet.

---

The only thing you could point out liberal about me was I hurt your Russian feelings

---

I only have American feelings there little guy

You should try putting America first for a change before some other foreign country like Ukraine or Israel

---

you should try not putting Russia first......

---

Name me one way I have ever "put Russia first"

Advocating for less wasteful spending and a more rational foreign policy is in the interest of America and the American people first and foremost

---

Russia invades Ukraine to subsume it in entirety? It's the natural order of things.
We send help to Ukraine? it's empire!

The Maidan protests weren't caused by Russian interference in Ukrainian politics (to reject an EU bill passed by the Ukrainian Parliament that he'd promised for years to sign). Oh no. It was caused by interference from Victoria Nuland.

Yanukovich signs an agreement with the political opposition to end the Maiden, then flees the country. the Ukrainian Parliament then formally removes him from office and forms an interim government followed by elections. You describe the whole thing as a CIA-led coup d'etat.

I could go on a bit. Russia can do no wrong in Ukraine, and we have a moral obligation to let them.

---

1. You assume the war is to "subsume" the entirely of Ukraine into Russia. For all we know its just a regime change operation to install a friendly government in Kyiv.

Not much different than the war DC waged in Iraq.

You don't see how to most countries in the world the actions of DC and Moscow seem very similar (invade who they want and over throw governments they don like)

2. The Maidan protests of course had a native element to them (so do our own BLM protests) but the fact that you and others refuse to deal with the role of Victoria Nuland and the CIA/State Department in those protests just makes it seem like you don't want any criticism spoken of about ruling class. DC has spent billions on Ukraine to influence their internal political system (for good or bad)

But no one ever said Russia was not active in Ukraine...hat is the whole point....Russia has always been there on the political level...its DC getting itself involved in the country that is new and outside our traditional area.

3. I never said it was a completely thought up and executed CIA coup...Ukraine (like our own country was political-cultural divided) yet from the perspective of the ethic russians in the East of the country and the powers that be in Moscow that protest/coup in Kyiv was a massive seismic event in the internal politics of Ukraine.

How many voters in the East of the country looked at what happened in Kyiv and said "well even when we vote our guy in they just use street thugs to throw him out"

Example...lets say you were an average conservative American in flyover country and you watched as the BLM protesters drove Trump from power in summer of 2020 how would you feel? What if you then found out that the Chinese communists had been giving billions to Leftists NGOs and Leftists activist groups on the ground. What if Chinese politicians had flown into DC to give encouragement to the protestors? What if Chinese bureaucrats were seen on the streets handing out sweats?

Would you come away from that bloody event thinking everything was on the up and up?

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

“If today, thinking it over calmly, we wonder why Europe went to war in 1914, there is not one sensible reason to be found, nor even any real occasion for the war."

- Stefan Zweig, 1942 https://t.co/gahv5YEPL8

— Rudy Havenstein, Senior Markets Commentator. (@RudyHavenstein) June 5, 2024

BREAKING: Putin Plans to deliver arms to countries at odds with the West.. -Inside Paper

This is escalating quickly. https://t.co/Ob6vh2CAwM

— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) June 5, 2024

---

Name a conflict in the last 50 years where the Russians didn't t supply arms to those in conflict with the West.

---

I don't remember the Russian Federation supply weapons to the insurgents in Iraq during our invasion and occupation of the country.

The Iranians certainly took advantage of the situation to use it as a proxy war against America. (well if you think it was a proxy war by the Iranian Ayatollahs ...some argue you have to instigate a conflict for it to be a proxy war and Iran did not instigate the USA-Iraq war)

Don't remember Russia doing the same....and they could have poured money into the country if they had wanted.