Redbrickbear said:

---

One more time: the people who most loudly and continuously claim that they are combatting "disinformation" are the exact people who spread it most aggressively and easily. Just look:https://t.co/Y0ZH32N2Hj

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 5, 2024

---

The Russian disinformation war was aimed at both ends of the US political spectrum with the entire goal being complete and total separation of the US politesse. IT worked brilliantly.

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.

---

You talking about the theater and apartment bombings in the late 90's that have since been proven to have been orchestrated by the GRU to make it look like Chechnyans so they'd have a reason to invade?

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

---

There'd probably be no war in Vietnam had the Soviets not been so aggressive trying to turn every country in that corner of the world to communism against the will of millions of people

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

The entirety of Iraq's military equipment was Russian equipment

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

One more time: the people who most loudly and continuously claim that they are combatting "disinformation" are the exact people who spread it most aggressively and easily. Just look:https://t.co/Y0ZH32N2Hj

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 5, 2024

---

The Russian disinformation war was aimed at both ends of the US political spectrum with the entire goal being complete and total separation of the US politesse. IT worked brilliantly.

---

1. When did this Russian disinformation war begin?

It is responsible for the intense cultural war being waged internally in the USA since the 1960s?

America was fragmenting on social-cultural-racial lines long before the Russian Federation even existed.

How are a few Russian troll farms responsible for that?

2. Lets say for the sake of argument its all true.

The entire Left-Liberal coalition wants to turn Moscow into radioactive vapor in he name of expanding feminism, LGBTQ rights, and "fighting fascism"

Every time a Ukraine war spending bill comes up it passes with ZERO Democrats voting against it.

Russian "disinformation" has turned even the old school Liberal doves into Rambos

There are more Democrats who complain about funding Israel now than complain about funding Ukraine and confronting Russia.

On the Right a majority still want to see regime change in Moscow and would love to replay the cold war with the Russian Federation playing the role of the USSR.

So at the very least we have to admit that Russian's disinformation campaign has done them no good. Except a small faction of the MAGA grouping who don't want anymore foreign wars they have made nothing but enemies in the US political system.

The last Ukraine funding bill passed by an overwhelming majority

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024151

Even conservative politicians are standing shoulder to should with Liberals to revamp the old "Axis of Evil" speech but with Russia included now in the list of enemies.

Real swell job they have done with their disinformation...its gotten them bupkis

https://www.newsweek.com/mike-johnson-impassioned-ukraine-speech-defies-maga-1891569

[The House of Representatives is expected to vote on sending additional aid to Ukraine and Israel on Saturday as part of the $95 billion military funding..."I believe Xi [Jinping] and Vladimir Putin and Iran really are and axis of evil" said Speaker Mike Johnson]

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

The entirety of Iraq's military equipment was Russian equipment

---

Soviet or Russia Federation?

Remember that both the USA and the USSR sold weapons to Iraq under Saddam's Baathist regime

Did the Russian Federation fund Iraq insurgents from 2003-2011?

During our occupation of Iraq did they take advantage of the situation to bleed the USA?

trey3216 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.

---

You talking about the theater and apartment bombings in the late 90's that have since been proven to have been orchestrated by the GRU to make it look like Chechnyans so they'd have a reason to invade?

---

It was proven?

Leaving aside it was completely believable that the radical Muslims who had killed 334 Russian children in Beslan, later attacked a Moscow theatre killing 132 civilians (with female suicide bombers), behead and murdered people in all over the place, planted bombs, and in general had acted like total psychopaths and monsters could do such a thing...

Our own Congress was so concerned (rightly) that its even held hearings on the threat of Islamic terrorism coming out of the area.

https://www.congress.gov/event/113th-congress/house-event/LC572/text

Interesting enough the questions about if it was Putins own thugs only seemed to have surfaced once DC and Moscow fell out.

I see that DC aligned western Media asks a lot of questions about that attack now days....and they are fair questions...but did any of them ask them back when it took place? I see a lot of articles dated post 2013....more than a decade after the attacks

https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-russia-president-1999-chechnya-apartment-bombings/30097551.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-1999-apartment-bombings-ukraine-175001959.html

I have never seen an article that 100% PROVED it was Russian intelligence vs Chechen Islamists

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

But that is not appeasement, mind you. It's just restoration of the proper order.

---

Well, appeasement has a proven track record...

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

The entirety of Iraq's military equipment was Russian equipment

---

Soviet or Russia Federation?

Remember that both the USA and the USSR sold weapons to Iraq under Saddam's Baathist regime

Did the Russian Federation fund Iraq insurgents from 2003-2011?

During our occupation of Iraq did they take advantage of the situation to bleed the USA?

---

I didn't see any M60's or M1A1's over there...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

The entirety of Iraq's military equipment was Russian equipment

---

Soviet or Russia Federation?

Remember that both the USA and the USSR sold weapons to Iraq under Saddam's Baathist regime

Did the Russian Federation fund Iraq insurgents from 2003-2011?

During our occupation of Iraq did they take advantage of the situation to bleed the USA?

---

I didn't see any M60's or M1A1's over there...

---

I doubt we sold them our top line main battle tank

But we certainly sold them other weapons... you think we didn't?

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/world/us-secretly-gave-aid-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html

[In the end, officials acknowledged, American arms, technology and intelligence helped Iraq avert defeat and eventually grow, with much help from the Soviet Union later, into the regional power that invaded Kuwait in August 1990, sparking the Persian Gulf war last year.]

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

But that is not appeasement, mind you. It's just restoration of the proper order.

---

Well, appeasement has a proven track record...

---

That just opens another can of worms in term of what is "appeasement" and what is reasonable negotiation and realpolitk

Almost certainly you are thinking about the historically false narrative around Prime Minister Chamberlain and the Munich agreement.

Something that was certainly the right call at the time.

Its amazing the slander that has been placed on the British and Chamberlain....all in the service of making every geo-political bad guy into Hitler and every situation into "Munich 1938"

[But among historians, that view changed in the late 1950s, when the British government began making Chamberlain-era records available to researchers. "The result of this was the discovery of all sorts of factors that narrowed the options of the British government in general and narrowed the options of Neville Chamberlain in particular," explains David Dutton, a British historian who wrote a recent biography of the prime minister. "The evidence was so overwhelming," he says, that many historians came to believe that Chamberlain "couldn't do anything other than what he did" at Munich. Over time, Dutton says, "the weight of the historiography began to shift to a much more sympathetic appreciation" of Chamberlain.

...historians agree that the British army was not ready for war with Germany in September 1938. If war had broken out over the Czechoslovak crisis, Britain would only have been able to send two divisions to the continentand ill-equipped divisions, at that. Between 1919 and March 1932, Britain had based its military planning on a "10-year rule," which assumed Britain would face no major war in the next decade. Rearmament only began in 1934and only on a limited basis. The British army, as it existed in September 1938, was simply not intended for continental warfare. Nor was the rearmament of the Navy or the Royal Air Force complete. British naval rearmament had recommenced in 1936 as part of a five-year program. And although Hitler's Luftwaffe had repeatedly doubled in size in the late 1930s, it wasn't until April 1938 that the British government decided that its air force could purchase as many aircraft as could be produced.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

The entirety of Iraq's military equipment was Russian equipment

---

Soviet or Russia Federation?

Remember that both the USA and the USSR sold weapons to Iraq under Saddam's Baathist regime

Did the Russian Federation fund Iraq insurgents from 2003-2011?

During our occupation of Iraq did they take advantage of the situation to bleed the USA?

---

I didn't see any M60's or M1A1's over there...

---

I doubt we sold them our top line main battle tank

But we certainly sold them other weapons... you think we didn't?

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/world/us-secretly-gave-aid-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html

[In the end, officials acknowledged, American arms, technology and intelligence helped Iraq avert defeat and eventually grow, with much help from the Soviet Union later, into the regional power that invaded Kuwait in August 1990, sparking the Persian Gulf war last year.]

---

I was being sarcastic... The Iraq Army was predominantly Russian armed. I do not remember being briefed on one US weapons system. All their armor, artillery, and infantry vehicles were Russian. I do not know enough about their Air Force. There are others on here that might have better info.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

The entirety of Iraq's military equipment was Russian equipment

---

Soviet or Russia Federation?

Remember that both the USA and the USSR sold weapons to Iraq under Saddam's Baathist regime

Did the Russian Federation fund Iraq insurgents from 2003-2011?

During our occupation of Iraq did they take advantage of the situation to bleed the USA?

---

I didn't see any M60's or M1A1's over there...

---

I doubt we sold them our top line main battle tank

But we certainly sold them other weapons... you think we didn't?

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/world/us-secretly-gave-aid-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html

[In the end, officials acknowledged, American arms, technology and intelligence helped Iraq avert defeat and eventually grow, with much help from the Soviet Union later, into the regional power that invaded Kuwait in August 1990, sparking the Persian Gulf war last year.]

---

I was being sarcastic... The Iraq Army was predominantly Russian armed. I do not remember being briefed on one US weapons system. All their armor, artillery, and infantry vehicles were Russian. I do not know enough about their Air Force. There are others on here that might have better info.

---

USSR armed or Russian armed?

I know you seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between those sperate political entities.

Did Iraq (who also got weapons from the USA) get the majority of their weapons from the USSR or the Russian Federation?

And did the Russian Federation then spend billions on funding the Iraqi insurgents while American troops invaded and occupied the country?

Most of the Russian Federation weapons sales to Iraq seem to have come after the US war was over and the new post Saddam elected government was in place

https://jamestown.org/program/russia-reemerging-weapons-supplier-iraq/

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

The entirety of Iraq's military equipment was Russian equipment

---

Soviet or Russia Federation?

Remember that both the USA and the USSR sold weapons to Iraq under Saddam's Baathist regime

Did the Russian Federation fund Iraq insurgents from 2003-2011?

During our occupation of Iraq did they take advantage of the situation to bleed the USA?

---

I didn't see any M60's or M1A1's over there...

---

I doubt we sold them our top line main battle tank

But we certainly sold them other weapons... you think we didn't?

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/world/us-secretly-gave-aid-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html

[In the end, officials acknowledged, American arms, technology and intelligence helped Iraq avert defeat and eventually grow, with much help from the Soviet Union later, into the regional power that invaded Kuwait in August 1990, sparking the Persian Gulf war last year.]

---

I was being sarcastic... The Iraq Army was predominantly Russian armed. I do not remember being briefed on one US weapons system. All their armor, artillery, and infantry vehicles were Russian. I do not know enough about their Air Force. There are others on here that might have better info.

---

USSR armed or Russian armed?

I know you seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between those sperate political entities.

Did Iraq (who also got weapons from the USA) get the majority of their weapons from the USSR or the Russian Federation?

And did the Russian Federation then spend billions on funding the Iraqi insurgents while American troops invaded and occupied the country?

Most of the Russian Federation weapons sales to Iraq seem to have come after the US war was over and the new post Saddam elected government was in place

https://jamestown.org/program/russia-reemerging-weapons-supplier-iraq/

---

Soviet Union and Russia are interchangeable. One is just PC now...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

The entirety of Iraq's military equipment was Russian equipment

---

Soviet or Russia Federation?

Remember that both the USA and the USSR sold weapons to Iraq under Saddam's Baathist regime

Did the Russian Federation fund Iraq insurgents from 2003-2011?

During our occupation of Iraq did they take advantage of the situation to bleed the USA?

---

I didn't see any M60's or M1A1's over there...

---

I doubt we sold them our top line main battle tank

But we certainly sold them other weapons... you think we didn't?

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/world/us-secretly-gave-aid-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html

[In the end, officials acknowledged, American arms, technology and intelligence helped Iraq avert defeat and eventually grow, with much help from the Soviet Union later, into the regional power that invaded Kuwait in August 1990, sparking the Persian Gulf war last year.]

---

I was being sarcastic... The Iraq Army was predominantly Russian armed. I do not remember being briefed on one US weapons system. All their armor, artillery, and infantry vehicles were Russian. I do not know enough about their Air Force. There are others on here that might have better info.

---

USSR armed or Russian armed?

I know you seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between those sperate political entities.

Did Iraq (who also got weapons from the USA) get the majority of their weapons from the USSR or the Russian Federation?

And did the Russian Federation then spend billions on funding the Iraqi insurgents while American troops invaded and occupied the country?

Most of the Russian Federation weapons sales to Iraq seem to have come after the US war was over and the new post Saddam elected government was in place

https://jamestown.org/program/russia-reemerging-weapons-supplier-iraq/

---

Soviet Union and Russia are interchangeable. One is just PC now...

---

lol...for you maybe.

But it does explain why its hard to have a conversation on here.

Some of you guys really think the USSR is still around but with a triband flag instead of the old Hammer and Sickle.

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 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.

---

You talking about the theater and apartment bombings in the late 90's that have since been proven to have been orchestrated by the GRU to make it look like Chechnyans so they'd have a reason to invade?

---

It was proven?

Leaving aside it was completely believable that the radical Muslims who had killed 334 Russian children in Beslan, later attacked a Moscow theatre killing 132 civilians (with female suicide bombers), behead and murdered people in all over the place, planted bombs, and in general had acted like total psychopaths and monsters could do such a thing...

Our own Congress was so concerned (rightly) that its even held hearings on the threat of Islamic terrorism coming out of the area.

https://www.congress.gov/event/113th-congress/house-event/LC572/text

Interesting enough the questions about if it was Putins own thugs only seemed to have surfaced once DC and Moscow fell out.

I see that DC aligned western Media asks a lot of questions about that attack now days....and they are fair questions...but did any of them ask them back when it took place? I see a lot of articles dated post 2013....more than a decade after the attacks

https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-russia-president-1999-chechnya-apartment-bombings/30097551.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-1999-apartment-bombings-ukraine-175001959.html

I have never seen an article that 100% PROVED it was Russian intelligence vs Chechen Islamists

---

You and Sample Jack have never proved that Victoria Nuland is the reason Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022, but here we are.

Yes, the case for Chechen Islamists doing it was real, and fairly likely that it could have happened. But there is a lot of evidence that it was Russian Intelligence either setting it up, or blatantly allowing it to happen (Police and Security walking away from the scene, aiding in locking the doors, and a host of other things that are 100% fact). So did the Intel community allow it to happen, or did they take part in it directly? I'll let history and God be the judge of that.

But for as much as y'all fight for the "FACT" that Maidan was a US setup, you jump up and down like a 3rd grader with your hand up to give the answer to 12x4 when someone points out that very likely isn't the case.

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 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.

---

You talking about the theater and apartment bombings in the late 90's that have since been proven to have been orchestrated by the GRU to make it look like Chechnyans so they'd have a reason to invade?

---

It was proven?

Leaving aside it was completely believable that the radical Muslims who had killed 334 Russian children in Beslan, later attacked a Moscow theatre killing 132 civilians (with female suicide bombers), behead and murdered people in all over the place, planted bombs, and in general had acted like total psychopaths and monsters could do such a thing...

Our own Congress was so concerned (rightly) that its even held hearings on the threat of Islamic terrorism coming out of the area.

https://www.congress.gov/event/113th-congress/house-event/LC572/text

Interesting enough the questions about if it was Putins own thugs only seemed to have surfaced once DC and Moscow fell out.

I see that DC aligned western Media asks a lot of questions about that attack now days....and they are fair questions...but did any of them ask them back when it took place? I see a lot of articles dated post 2013....more than a decade after the attacks

https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-russia-president-1999-chechnya-apartment-bombings/30097551.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-1999-apartment-bombings-ukraine-175001959.html

I have never seen an article that 100% PROVED it was Russian intelligence vs Chechen Islamists

---

You and Sample Jack have never proved that Victoria Nuland is the reason Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022, but here we are.

---

Certainly true.

Its impossible for a simple fly over deplorable like me to get proof that people like her orchestrated a coup.

But we do have her on video hanging around Kyiv during the riots/protests for some strange reason and on camera admitting to spending billions of our tax payer money on "influencing Ukrainian society"

I certainly have my suspicions and maybe like the CIA operations in Cuba and Iran in the 50s we might get the info released one day.

As you seem to have suspicions about the bombings of the Moscow apartments in 1999

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

The entirety of Iraq's military equipment was Russian equipment

---

Soviet or Russia Federation?

Remember that both the USA and the USSR sold weapons to Iraq under Saddam's Baathist regime

Did the Russian Federation fund Iraq insurgents from 2003-2011?

During our occupation of Iraq did they take advantage of the situation to bleed the USA?

---

I didn't see any M60's or M1A1's over there...

---

I doubt we sold them our top line main battle tank

But we certainly sold them other weapons... you think we didn't?

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/world/us-secretly-gave-aid-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html

[In the end, officials acknowledged, American arms, technology and intelligence helped Iraq avert defeat and eventually grow, with much help from the Soviet Union later, into the regional power that invaded Kuwait in August 1990, sparking the Persian Gulf war last year.]

---

I was being sarcastic... The Iraq Army was predominantly Russian armed. I do not remember being briefed on one US weapons system. All their armor, artillery, and infantry vehicles were Russian. I do not know enough about their Air Force. There are others on here that might have better info.

---

USSR armed or Russian armed?

I know you seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between those sperate political entities.

Did Iraq (who also got weapons from the USA) get the majority of their weapons from the USSR or the Russian Federation?

And did the Russian Federation then spend billions on funding the Iraqi insurgents while American troops invaded and occupied the country?

Most of the Russian Federation weapons sales to Iraq seem to have come after the US war was over and the new post Saddam elected government was in place

https://jamestown.org/program/russia-reemerging-weapons-supplier-iraq/

---

There is about an 8 year window from the time the USSR completely folded until the wannabe USSR authoritarian regime took over...there really isn't much of a difference.

---

Just a complete different economic, cultural, and political system that came into being.


For reverence there was only an 8 year window between British rule in American and the creation of the USA

A large change that did not touch much on the culture and not really that much on economics....but was more purely political in nature.

Yet it was a huge change and Royalist British America was not the same entity as the new Republic of the United States of America.

Russia went through an even larger change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 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.

---

You talking about the theater and apartment bombings in the late 90's that have since been proven to have been orchestrated by the GRU to make it look like Chechnyans so they'd have a reason to invade?

---

It was proven?

Leaving aside it was completely believable that the radical Muslims who had killed 334 Russian children in Beslan, later attacked a Moscow theatre killing 132 civilians (with female suicide bombers), behead and murdered people in all over the place, planted bombs, and in general had acted like total psychopaths and monsters could do such a thing...

Our own Congress was so concerned (rightly) that its even held hearings on the threat of Islamic terrorism coming out of the area.

https://www.congress.gov/event/113th-congress/house-event/LC572/text

Interesting enough the questions about if it was Putins own thugs only seemed to have surfaced once DC and Moscow fell out.

I see that DC aligned western Media asks a lot of questions about that attack now days....and they are fair questions...but did any of them ask them back when it took place? I see a lot of articles dated post 2013....more than a decade after the attacks

https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-russia-president-1999-chechnya-apartment-bombings/30097551.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-1999-apartment-bombings-ukraine-175001959.html

I have never seen an article that 100% PROVED it was Russian intelligence vs Chechen Islamists

---

You and Sample Jack have never proved that Victoria Nuland is the reason Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022, but here we are.

---

Certainly true.

Its impossible for a simple fly over deplorable like me to get proof that people like her orchestrated a coup.

But we do have her on video hanging around Kyiv during the riots/protests for some strange reason and on camera admitting to spending billions of our tax payer money on "influencing Ukrainian society"

I certainly have my suspicions and maybe like the CIA operations in Cuba and Iran in the 50s we might get the info released one day.

As you seem to have suspicions about the bombings of the Moscow apartments in 1999

---

A simple few months leading up to the election of an ambitious KGB autocrat looking to "right the wrongs of the 80's and 90's" in a country known for corruption. Hardly a stretch given his prior job and knowing he would likely win the election in early '00.

But hey, to each....

ron.reagan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation.

One China has been recognized under US policy since 1972.

---

No it hasn't.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/2479

First line:

"Taiwan Relations Act - Declares it to be the policy of the United States to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, as well as the people on the China mainland and all other people of the Western Pacific area."


later:

"Stipulates that the absence of diplomatic relations with or recognition of Taiwan shall not affect U.S. laws relating to Taiwan. "

That is One China policy in the same way North Korea has a democratic republic.

---

"The US side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all US forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes. The two sides agreed that it is desirable to broaden the understanding between the two peoples. To this end, they discussed specific areas in such fields as science, technology, culture, sports and journalism, in which people-to-people contacts and exchanges would be mutually beneficial. Each side undertakes to facilitate the further development of such contacts and exchanges."

Joint Communique of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China (Shanghai Communique), February 28, 1972

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 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.

---

You talking about the theater and apartment bombings in the late 90's that have since been proven to have been orchestrated by the GRU to make it look like Chechnyans so they'd have a reason to invade?

---

It was proven?

Leaving aside it was completely believable that the radical Muslims who had killed 334 Russian children in Beslan, later attacked a Moscow theatre killing 132 civilians (with female suicide bombers), behead and murdered people in all over the place, planted bombs, and in general had acted like total psychopaths and monsters could do such a thing...

Our own Congress was so concerned (rightly) that its even held hearings on the threat of Islamic terrorism coming out of the area.

https://www.congress.gov/event/113th-congress/house-event/LC572/text

Interesting enough the questions about if it was Putins own thugs only seemed to have surfaced once DC and Moscow fell out.

I see that DC aligned western Media asks a lot of questions about that attack now days....and they are fair questions...but did any of them ask them back when it took place? I see a lot of articles dated post 2013....more than a decade after the attacks

https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-russia-president-1999-chechnya-apartment-bombings/30097551.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-1999-apartment-bombings-ukraine-175001959.html

I have never seen an article that 100% PROVED it was Russian intelligence vs Chechen Islamists

---

You and Sample Jack have never proved that Victoria Nuland is the reason Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022, but here we are.

---

Certainly true.

Its impossible for a simple fly over deplorable like me to get proof that people like her orchestrated a coup.

But we do have her on video hanging around Kyiv during the riots/protests for some strange reason and on camera admitting to spending billions of our tax payer money on "influencing Ukrainian society"

I certainly have my suspicions and maybe like the CIA operations in Cuba and Iran in the 50s we might get the info released one day.

As you seem to have suspicions about the bombings of the Moscow apartments in 1999

---

A simple few months leading up to the election of an ambitious KGB autocrat looking to "right the wrongs of the 80's and 90's" in a country known for corruption. Hardly a stretch given his prior job and knowing he would likely win the election in early '00.

But hey, to each....

---

Well Ukraine always ranks as one of the most corrupt nations on earth....yet you think its ridiculous to assume its political leaders or street thugs could be bought by DC money to stage a political change.

For my own position I have never said that Putin was not capable of setting off bombs in Moscow to give him a free hand in Chechnya

But we don't have the proof you claimed we did

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation.

One China has been recognized under US policy since 1972.

---

No it hasn't.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/2479

First line:

"Taiwan Relations Act - Declares it to be the policy of the United States to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, as well as the people on the China mainland and all other people of the Western Pacific area."


later:

"Stipulates that the absence of diplomatic relations with or recognition of Taiwan shall not affect U.S. laws relating to Taiwan. "

That is One China policy in the same way North Korea has a democratic republic.

---

China and Russia only understand one thing, strength. They go about it different ways, but it is the same mentality, they will take as much as you give. They rely on the US and NATO playing the diplomatic, reasonable and want peace game. All the talk is just that talk, until you stop them from invading Nations, making islands in the S China Sea, stealing tech, and so on. This play nice and they will play nice what Putin and Xi are counting on.

---

They understand diplomacy exponentially better than we do. Russia has some of the top diplomats in the world where we have mostly amateurs.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

The entirety of Iraq's military equipment was Russian equipment

---

Soviet or Russia Federation?

Remember that both the USA and the USSR sold weapons to Iraq under Saddam's Baathist regime

Did the Russian Federation fund Iraq insurgents from 2003-2011?

During our occupation of Iraq did they take advantage of the situation to bleed the USA?

---

I didn't see any M60's or M1A1's over there...

---

I doubt we sold them our top line main battle tank

But we certainly sold them other weapons... you think we didn't?

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/world/us-secretly-gave-aid-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html

[In the end, officials acknowledged, American arms, technology and intelligence helped Iraq avert defeat and eventually grow, with much help from the Soviet Union later, into the regional power that invaded Kuwait in August 1990, sparking the Persian Gulf war last year.]

---

I was being sarcastic... The Iraq Army was predominantly Russian armed. I do not remember being briefed on one US weapons system. All their armor, artillery, and infantry vehicles were Russian. I do not know enough about their Air Force. There are others on here that might have better info.

---

USSR armed or Russian armed?

I know you seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between those sperate political entities.

Did Iraq (who also got weapons from the USA) get the majority of their weapons from the USSR or the Russian Federation?

And did the Russian Federation then spend billions on funding the Iraqi insurgents while American troops invaded and occupied the country?

Most of the Russian Federation weapons sales to Iraq seem to have come after the US war was over and the new post Saddam elected government was in place

https://jamestown.org/program/russia-reemerging-weapons-supplier-iraq/

---

Soviet Union and Russia are interchangeable. One is just PC now...

---

lol...for you maybe.

But it does explain why its hard to have a conversation on here.

Some of you guys really think the USSR is still around but with a triband flag instead of the old Hammer and Sickle.

---

As I've illustrated, very much similar in numerous ways that count. I'm still waiting on that list of major differences in name and practice.

---

Not on this thread....on the premium side...did you forget that?

https://sicem365.com/forums/19/topics/102535/253

And you did not do it very well.

Laughably so in the case of trying to say the USSR and the Russian Federation were the same on the Orthodox Church

But I will reproduce your post and my response for this thread.

Of your 12 bullet point items of comparison you were right on about 2 of them...not a good showing.

[sombear said:

But, let's look at Russia. Just top of head.

Still great national pride, even significant yearning, for Soviet empire, which is understandable. (the Soviets made war on Russian nationalism and national pride...killing vast numbers of Russian nationalists and sending more to the Gulag for life during their rule)

Similar allies and enemies. (The Soviet empire is gone...all their allies in central Europe are also gone and most in Africa and Asia as well. And Russia now is friends with Iran when they were in fact enemies in the cold war under the Shah)

Generally supports socialist and communist movements around the world. (Modern Russia does not support communists movements around the world like the URRS....and we can't complain about socialism...DC and the Euro-crats in Brussels support leftist and socialist ideology all over the place)

Opposes U.S. at virtually every turn... (Does it oppose the US for ideological reasons similar to the USSR or because DC has decided to make itself an adversary of modern Russia and stage coups around its borderlands?)

Still significant restrictions on individual and press freedoms. (gosh want an ignorant statement....there was zero press in the old USSR that was not a communist party organ and you could be -and often were- executed for having the wrong views...nothing near that level takes place today in Russia even if its a corrupt system with most of the media aligned with Putin)

Orthodox church. (another staggering ignorant statement. The Soviets tried to destroy the Russian Orthodox Church completely, killed thousands of Priests and Bishops, destroyed most Church buildings and stole the rest, and made the whole Church an "illegal entity" until World War II and discriminated against it and its followers until the end of the USSR itself.

"The Soviet Union destroyed many churches as part of their state atheism policy, which aimed to eliminate religious beliefs. The Soviet government expropriated all church property, including churches themselves, within a year of the revolution. Between 1921 and 1953, the Soviets shut down or repurposed around 1,305 religious buildings in Georgia alone. Churches and monasteries were demolished all over the Soviet Union. Throughout this period, around 3,407 members of the clergy were executed")

Communist economy replaced with combination of oligarchy/soft-socialism. (So you admit a different system)

Still need gov connections to get ahead, get a good job, start business - similar to old communist party patronage. (no not like the old Communist party or economic system...there was no private property in the USSR and you certainly don't need Putin's permission to get a job or start a business in modern Russia. Even if being buddies with Putin is a way to become super rich

"Private ownership of enterprises and property had essentially remained illegal throughout the Soviet era, with Soviet Communism emphasizing national control over all means of production")

Tremendous corruption. (ok you finally got one that is correct)

Demographics not all that different. (Soviets had a growing population and above replacement fertility rate. Russia does not. Plus the Soviet Union had 100 million more citizens than modern Russia has)

Still an oil economy. (export heavy yes...so?)

Similar education institutions (no, the educational institutions of the USSR were Communist Party controlled and demanded loyalty to the Regime ideology of orthodox Marxism)]

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation.

One China has been recognized under US policy since 1972.

---

No it hasn't.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/2479

First line:

"Taiwan Relations Act - Declares it to be the policy of the United States to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, as well as the people on the China mainland and all other people of the Western Pacific area."


later:

"Stipulates that the absence of diplomatic relations with or recognition of Taiwan shall not affect U.S. laws relating to Taiwan. "

That is One China policy in the same way North Korea has a democratic republic.

---

China and Russia only understand one thing, strength. They go about it different ways, but it is the same mentality, they will take as much as you give. They rely on the US and NATO playing the diplomatic, reasonable and want peace game. All the talk is just that talk, until you stop them from invading Nations, making islands in the S China Sea, stealing tech, and so on. This play nice and they will play nice what Putin and Xi are counting on.

---

They understand diplomacy exponentially better than we do. Russia has some of the top diplomats in the world where we have mostly amateurs.

---

LOL!!!!!! The vatnik comedy never ends with the shills.

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 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.

---

You talking about the theater and apartment bombings in the late 90's that have since been proven to have been orchestrated by the GRU to make it look like Chechnyans so they'd have a reason to invade?

---

It was proven?

Leaving aside it was completely believable that the radical Muslims who had killed 334 Russian children in Beslan, later attacked a Moscow theatre killing 132 civilians (with female suicide bombers), behead and murdered people in all over the place, planted bombs, and in general had acted like total psychopaths and monsters could do such a thing...

Our own Congress was so concerned (rightly) that its even held hearings on the threat of Islamic terrorism coming out of the area.

https://www.congress.gov/event/113th-congress/house-event/LC572/text

Interesting enough the questions about if it was Putins own thugs only seemed to have surfaced once DC and Moscow fell out.

I see that DC aligned western Media asks a lot of questions about that attack now days....and they are fair questions...but did any of them ask them back when it took place? I see a lot of articles dated post 2013....more than a decade after the attacks

https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-russia-president-1999-chechnya-apartment-bombings/30097551.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-1999-apartment-bombings-ukraine-175001959.html

I have never seen an article that 100% PROVED it was Russian intelligence vs Chechen Islamists

---

You and Sample Jack have never proved that Victoria Nuland is the reason Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022, but here we are.

---

Certainly true.

Its impossible for a simple fly over deplorable like me to get proof that people like her orchestrated a coup.

But we do have her on video hanging around Kyiv during the riots/protests for some strange reason and on camera admitting to spending billions of our tax payer money on "influencing Ukrainian society"

I certainly have my suspicions and maybe like the CIA operations in Cuba and Iran in the 50s we might get the info released one day.

As you seem to have suspicions about the bombings of the Moscow apartments in 1999

---

A simple few months leading up to the election of an ambitious KGB autocrat looking to "right the wrongs of the 80's and 90's" in a country known for corruption. Hardly a stretch given his prior job and knowing he would likely win the election in early '00.

But hey, to each....

---

Well Ukraine always ranks as one of the most corrupt nations on earth....yet you think its ridiculous to assume its political leaders or street thugs could be bought by DC money to stage a political change.

For my own position I have never said that Putin was not capable of setting off bombs in Moscow to give him a free hand in Chechnya

But we don't have the proof you claimed we did

---

Nor do we have the 'proof' that you claim. Yet here we are.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.
Yes, great powers do use soft power to promote and defend their interests, in no small part because it's a lot cheaper to do that than go to war.

How does bringing in a place like Georgia actually help the American people? Or strengthen the NATO military alliance?
The argument goes (and in making it I'm neither endorsing nor rejecting it) that it is strategic depth for a key member (Turkey) on the right flank of the alliance....that a loyal or neutral Georgia greatly complicates Russian diplomatic and military efforts in the Caucasus. You abandon Turkey, you weaken the alliance. You can also google up the "Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan Pipeline," which is of obvious benefit to all of Europe.

I'm sure the little Comoros islands might want to join NATO...but should we let them? How would it be to our benefit?
We don't really need it as long as we have Diego Garcia, IS a part of Nato. But that could change, depending on future developments in Africa.

---

here's your dilemma: the foundation of your position is that Ukraine does not matter (ergo there is no cost-benefit equation, so quit spending money, dammit!) . That is a very bad foundation which leads to very bad conclusions.

Ukraine does matter. A lot. What we're spending there is quite modest compared to the cost of dealing with a vastly expanded Russian empire.

---

If you and Alzheimer Joe want to get rid of this vastly expanded Russian empire, you don't need a $100 billion proxy war to make it go away. A visit with your friendly family doctor and a few milligrams of brexpiprazole can work wonders.

Help is available.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation.

One China has been recognized under US policy since 1972.

---

No it hasn't.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/2479

First line:

"Taiwan Relations Act - Declares it to be the policy of the United States to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, as well as the people on the China mainland and all other people of the Western Pacific area."


later:

"Stipulates that the absence of diplomatic relations with or recognition of Taiwan shall not affect U.S. laws relating to Taiwan. "

That is One China policy in the same way North Korea has a democratic republic.

---

China and Russia only understand one thing, strength. They go about it different ways, but it is the same mentality, they will take as much as you give. They rely on the US and NATO playing the diplomatic, reasonable and want peace game. All the talk is just that talk, until you stop them from invading Nations, making islands in the S China Sea, stealing tech, and so on. This play nice and they will play nice what Putin and Xi are counting on.

---

They understand diplomacy exponentially better than we do. Russia has some of the top diplomats in the world where we have mostly amateurs.

---

Good Christ, my man.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.
Yes, great powers do use soft power to promote and defend their interests, in no small part because it's a lot cheaper to do that than go to war.

How does bringing in a place like Georgia actually help the American people? Or strengthen the NATO military alliance?
The argument goes (and in making it I'm neither endorsing nor rejecting it) that it is strategic depth for a key member (Turkey) on the right flank of the alliance....that a loyal or neutral Georgia greatly complicates Russian diplomatic and military efforts in the Caucasus. You abandon Turkey, you weaken the alliance. You can also google up the "Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan Pipeline," which is of obvious benefit to all of Europe.

I'm sure the little Comoros islands might want to join NATO...but should we let them? How would it be to our benefit?
We don't really need it as long as we have Diego Garcia, IS a part of Nato. But that could change, depending on future developments in Africa.

---

here's your dilemma: the foundation of your position is that Ukraine does not matter (ergo there is no cost-benefit equation, so quit spending money, dammit!) . That is a very bad foundation which leads to very bad conclusions.

Ukraine does matter. A lot. What we're spending there is quite modest compared to the cost of dealing with a vastly expanded Russian empire.

---

If you and Alzheimer Joe want to get rid of this vastly expanded Russian empire, you don't need a $100 billion proxy war to make it go away. A visit with your friendly family doctor and a few milligrams of brexpiprazole can work wonders.

Help is available.

---

Then the next expansionist Russian despot takes over...and then the next....and then the next....

Once they learn a lesson that 16th century feudalism and conquest isn't a 21st century machination, perhaps they won't be so despotic.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation.

One China has been recognized under US policy since 1972.

---

No it hasn't.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/2479

First line:

"Taiwan Relations Act - Declares it to be the policy of the United States to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, as well as the people on the China mainland and all other people of the Western Pacific area."


later:

"Stipulates that the absence of diplomatic relations with or recognition of Taiwan shall not affect U.S. laws relating to Taiwan. "

That is One China policy in the same way North Korea has a democratic republic.

---

China and Russia only understand one thing, strength. They go about it different ways, but it is the same mentality, they will take as much as you give. They rely on the US and NATO playing the diplomatic, reasonable and want peace game. All the talk is just that talk, until you stop them from invading Nations, making islands in the S China Sea, stealing tech, and so on. This play nice and they will play nice what Putin and Xi are counting on.

---

They understand diplomacy exponentially better than we do. Russia has some of the top diplomats in the world where we have mostly amateurs.

---

I don't know if they have good diplomats...or if its more like other nations just want to trade with Russia for its natural resources.

But many other countries are sitting out this conflict

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.
Yes, great powers do use soft power to promote and defend their interests, in no small part because it's a lot cheaper to do that than go to war.

How does bringing in a place like Georgia actually help the American people? Or strengthen the NATO military alliance?
The argument goes (and in making it I'm neither endorsing nor rejecting it) that it is strategic depth for a key member (Turkey) on the right flank of the alliance....that a loyal or neutral Georgia greatly complicates Russian diplomatic and military efforts in the Caucasus. You abandon Turkey, you weaken the alliance. You can also google up the "Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan Pipeline," which is of obvious benefit to all of Europe.

I'm sure the little Comoros islands might want to join NATO...but should we let them? How would it be to our benefit?
We don't really need it as long as we have Diego Garcia, IS a part of Nato. But that could change, depending on future developments in Africa.

---

here's your dilemma: the foundation of your position is that Ukraine does not matter (ergo there is no cost-benefit equation, so quit spending money, dammit!) . That is a very bad foundation which leads to very bad conclusions.

Ukraine does matter. A lot. What we're spending there is quite modest compared to the cost of dealing with a vastly expanded Russian empire.

---

If you and Alzheimer Joe want to get rid of this vastly expanded Russian empire, you don't need a $100 billion proxy war to make it go away. A visit with your friendly family doctor and a few milligrams of brexpiprazole can work wonders.

Help is available.

---

Then the next expansionist Russian despot takes over...and then the next....and then the next....

---

What if its less expansionism than the fact that whatever government exists in Moscow is going to not want NATO bases close to its borders and want to have friendly governments in place around them.

Even if you get your way and over throw the Putinist regime in Moscow what are the chances that the next government (be it Republican, Fascist, Communist, Theocratic) acts the exact same way toward its borderland states of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan?

I assure you that whoever rules the USA in the future will always want Canada & Mexico to be partner states and NOT in a military alliance with anyone else.

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 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.

---

You talking about the theater and apartment bombings in the late 90's that have since been proven to have been orchestrated by the GRU to make it look like Chechnyans so they'd have a reason to invade?

---

It was proven?

Leaving aside it was completely believable that the radical Muslims who had killed 334 Russian children in Beslan, later attacked a Moscow theatre killing 132 civilians (with female suicide bombers), behead and murdered people in all over the place, planted bombs, and in general had acted like total psychopaths and monsters could do such a thing...

Our own Congress was so concerned (rightly) that its even held hearings on the threat of Islamic terrorism coming out of the area.

https://www.congress.gov/event/113th-congress/house-event/LC572/text

Interesting enough the questions about if it was Putins own thugs only seemed to have surfaced once DC and Moscow fell out.

I see that DC aligned western Media asks a lot of questions about that attack now days....and they are fair questions...but did any of them ask them back when it took place? I see a lot of articles dated post 2013....more than a decade after the attacks

https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-russia-president-1999-chechnya-apartment-bombings/30097551.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-1999-apartment-bombings-ukraine-175001959.html

I have never seen an article that 100% PROVED it was Russian intelligence vs Chechen Islamists

---

You and Sample Jack have never proved that Victoria Nuland is the reason Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022, but here we are.

---

Certainly true.

Its impossible for a simple fly over deplorable like me to get proof that people like her orchestrated a coup.

But we do have her on video hanging around Kyiv during the riots/protests for some strange reason and on camera admitting to spending billions of our tax payer money on "influencing Ukrainian society"

I certainly have my suspicions and maybe like the CIA operations in Cuba and Iran in the 50s we might get the info released one day.

As you seem to have suspicions about the bombings of the Moscow apartments in 1999

---

A simple few months leading up to the election of an ambitious KGB autocrat looking to "right the wrongs of the 80's and 90's" in a country known for corruption. Hardly a stretch given his prior job and knowing he would likely win the election in early '00.

But hey, to each....

---

Well Ukraine always ranks as one of the most corrupt nations on earth....yet you think its ridiculous to assume its political leaders or street thugs could be bought by DC money to stage a political change.

For my own position I have never said that Putin was not capable of setting off bombs in Moscow to give him a free hand in Chechnya

But we don't have the proof you claimed we did

---

Nor do we have the 'proof' that you claim. Yet here we are.

---

I admitted as much.

Maybe decades down the line we will find out if DC orchestrated the Maidan coup/revolution.

And maybe we will find out if Putin blew up his own apartments in Moscow.

All things come out in time.

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.
Yes, great powers do use soft power to promote and defend their interests, in no small part because it's a lot cheaper to do that than go to war.

How does bringing in a place like Georgia actually help the American people? Or strengthen the NATO military alliance?
The argument goes (and in making it I'm neither endorsing nor rejecting it) that it is strategic depth for a key member (Turkey) on the right flank of the alliance....that a loyal or neutral Georgia greatly complicates Russian diplomatic and military efforts in the Caucasus. You abandon Turkey, you weaken the alliance. You can also google up the "Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan Pipeline," which is of obvious benefit to all of Europe.

I'm sure the little Comoros islands might want to join NATO...but should we let them? How would it be to our benefit?
We don't really need it as long as we have Diego Garcia, IS a part of Nato. But that could change, depending on future developments in Africa.

---

here's your dilemma: the foundation of your position is that Ukraine does not matter (ergo there is no cost-benefit equation, so quit spending money, dammit!) . That is a very bad foundation which leads to very bad conclusions.

Ukraine does matter. A lot. What we're spending there is quite modest compared to the cost of dealing with a vastly expanded Russian empire.

---

If you and Alzheimer Joe want to get rid of this vastly expanded Russian empire, you don't need a $100 billion proxy war to make it go away. A visit with your friendly family doctor and a few milligrams of brexpiprazole can work wonders.

Help is available.

---

Then the next expansionist Russian despot takes over...and then the next....and then the next....

---

What if its less expansionism than the fact that whatever government exists in Moscow is going to not want NATO bases close to its borders and want to have friendly governments in place around them.

Even if you get your way and over throw the Putinist regime in Moscow what are the chances that the next government (be it Republican, Fascist, Communist, Theocratic) acts the exact same way toward its borderland states of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan?

I assure you that whoever rules the USA in the future will always want Canada & Mexico to be partner states and NOT in a military alliance with anyone else.

---

It helps that we continually give them ample benefit of not needing or wanting to be in a military alliance with anyone else. That's not exactly the case with our 'friends' in Moscow.

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.
Yes, great powers do use soft power to promote and defend their interests, in no small part because it's a lot cheaper to do that than go to war.

How does bringing in a place like Georgia actually help the American people? Or strengthen the NATO military alliance?
The argument goes (and in making it I'm neither endorsing nor rejecting it) that it is strategic depth for a key member (Turkey) on the right flank of the alliance....that a loyal or neutral Georgia greatly complicates Russian diplomatic and military efforts in the Caucasus. You abandon Turkey, you weaken the alliance. You can also google up the "Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan Pipeline," which is of obvious benefit to all of Europe.

I'm sure the little Comoros islands might want to join NATO...but should we let them? How would it be to our benefit?
We don't really need it as long as we have Diego Garcia, IS a part of Nato. But that could change, depending on future developments in Africa.

---

here's your dilemma: the foundation of your position is that Ukraine does not matter (ergo there is no cost-benefit equation, so quit spending money, dammit!) . That is a very bad foundation which leads to very bad conclusions.

Ukraine does matter. A lot. What we're spending there is quite modest compared to the cost of dealing with a vastly expanded Russian empire.

---

If you and Alzheimer Joe want to get rid of this vastly expanded Russian empire, you don't need a $100 billion proxy war to make it go away. A visit with your friendly family doctor and a few milligrams of brexpiprazole can work wonders.

Help is available.

---

Then the next expansionist Russian despot takes over...and then the next....and then the next....

---

What if its less expansionism than the fact that whatever government exists in Moscow is going to not want NATO bases close to its borders and want to have friendly governments in place around them.

Even if you get your way and over throw the Putinist regime in Moscow what are the chances that the next government (be it Republican, Fascist, Communist, Theocratic) acts the exact same way toward its borderland states of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan?

I assure you that whoever rules the USA in the future will always want Canada & Mexico to be partner states and NOT in a military alliance with anyone else.

---

It helps that we continually give them ample benefit of not needing or wanting to be in a military alliance with anyone else. That's not exactly the case with our 'friends' in Moscow.

---

Well now that is just a accurate statement on the fact that the USA is a better neighbor than Russia.

I don't think anyone ever said differently.

ps

Well accept for Diaz lol

[Mexican President Porfirio Diaz once said, "Poor Mexico, So Far From God, So Close to the United States."]