Democracy in peril

[tosca1]

So you're saying NATO should attack Russia?

No.
I'm pointing to the bulls***!

Lol - why haven't NATO want to declare a no-fly zone over Ukraine?
NATO says they don't want a "direct" confrontation with Russia!

What are we doing supplying Ukraine to fight against Russia - like as if it's not being announced publicly!
You telling me Putin doesn't know NATO is behind all the military supplies being used by Ukraine?
You don't call that a confrontation?

What do you call these sanctions?
You don't call that a confrontation?


Warning China and other countries from aiding Russia.
You don't call that a confrontation against Russia?
And......a confrontational message against China? And, other nations that might be friendly to Russia?

 

[tosca1]

Bravo, I couldn't agree with you more. Either shit or get off the pot. Wave the flag or confront the problem. The longer we wait I fear the worse it will become and it sends a horrible message to others of putin's mindset.

If NATO is cowed by going directly against Russia...................... what more when a bigger power like China officially joins Russia?

What more, we're just wasting all these money. How are we going to finance an even bigger war if it happens t that. And, by the looks of it - it's headed that way.
Biden is more interested in scoring approval points - thus, they make a public spectacle of allegedly, "warning" China.

Lol - they're going to try to shame and humiliate China by publicly saying, "they're warning China."
If China refrains from aiding Russia....................... it'll look like Biden has scared off Xi!
Biden seems to be goading China to join the fray!

Haven't they learned from experience? The last thing China would want is to................................ lose face!

Some DIPLOMATIC negotiations - especially when it involves diffusing the possibility of a nuclear war - are not to be made public!
You don't try to shame, or put the other leader on a corner BEFORE THE WHOLE WORLD, when you're trying to be diplomatic.
UNLESS, you aim to have him do just exactly what you warned him from doing.

 

[tosca1]

It's not 'apparently', it's simply the history. Russia obviously broke their promise.

She named UK and USA, too.

Relying on Russia's promise would be like a chicken relying on a wolf. Especially when Russia has history.
But, relying on USA and UK - and being let down like this - that must really feel like a betrayal.

Imagine how the other small nations who rely on these two, and NATO must feel right now.
Of course, they wouldn't be vocal about it.

It seems to me, nobody among these allied nations would want their citizens to feel the pinch of war (like the scarcity of supplies). They're afraid of the backlash at the polls.
And, what more....................... if a soldier dies fighting this war. Just imagine the cringe-moment of these allied nations.

 

[tosca1]

Like I said, to repeat, NATO wasn't designed as the protector of small nations. It's not so much a 'lesson'. That's like saying there's a lesson the police won't come mow your lawn. Well, no they won't, but there was no reason you should think they will.

I laid out things like the UN role.

They're supposed to protect their allies!
Isn't that what sending troops to all the allies neighboring Ukraine is supposed to be all about?
So - they're just........................posturing?

Did you read the Russian drone that flew over 3 NATO allies countries?

Croatia criticizes NATO after crash of Russian-made drone

Croatian officials have criticized NATO for what they called a slow reaction to the military drone that apparently flew all the way from the Ukrainian war zone over three alliance member states before crashing in an urban zone of the Croatian capital

abcnews.go.com

How pathetic is that?

 

[Craig234]

They're supposed to protect their allies!
Isn't that what sending troops to all the allies neighboring Ukraine is supposed to be all about?
So - they're just........................posturing?

Did you read the Russian drone that flew over 3 NATO allies countries?

The troops to the neighboring allies are because those are NATO countries. Protecting allies is optional and varies. Because Russia has nuclear weapons, the US and NATO won't get into war with them, they're doing other things. Spying on each other has been going on a long time. Remember Gary Powers?

 

[Craig234]

She named UK and USA, too.

Relying on Russia's promise would be like a chicken relying on a wolf. Especially when Russia has history.
But, relying on USA and UK - and being let down like this - that must really feel like a betrayal.

Imagine how the other small nations who rely on these two, and NATO must feel right now.
Of course, they wouldn't be vocal about it.

It seems to me, nobody among these allied nations would want their citizens to feel the pinch of war (like the scarcity of supplies). They're afraid of the backlash at the polls.
And, what more....................... if a soldier dies fighting this war. Just imagine the cringe-moment of these allied nations.

It might feel like a betrayal. But there wasn't a specific response promised, much less to a nuclear power, much less to one of the signers, and it wasn't a 'legal document', it was a promise. Russia broke it. The US is doing what it can without going to war with Russia.

 

[Bob_Bennet]

Here is the naked truth:

HERE is the naked truth: The biggest enemies of freedom are fascist pigs like Canada's boy-band little Hitler, and the drooling senile fascist Biden.

From suppression of speech by their big tech proxies, to fascist lockdowns, to rigging and stealing elections, and more, the Left is the enemy of Liberty.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I think it's your understanding that's................................ "ignorant."
You've got some comprehension issues, by the looks of it.
I never said NATO should attack Russia. You better try to understand what you read.

You better pay attention to the contents of your own posts.

If no one really wants a war - why don't we just skip all the bulls***, and wave the white flag?

I'm saying, among the allied nations, there isn't any willingness to fight the war!

The above two comments (and several other like posts) of yours clearly state your desire that NATO countries become directly involved in Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s invasion.

For those of us that are capable of thinking past the end of our noses, your comments indicate that you want NATO countries to go to war with Russia, because that is what would happen if NATO countries became directly involved in the fight.

And since I’m already taking time to respond to your post, I might as well help clear up a few other false/idiotic notions you’re peddling;

- The United States did not promise military protection to Ukraine. Ever.

- Biden isn’t acting based on polls. He, along with other allied leaders, is doing his best to help Ukraine without drawing the United States into a full blown war with Russia.

- Asserting that “all nations must aspire to …. have nuclear capabilities, if they can afford it” again demonstrates your very shortsighted and limited understanding of geopolitical security.

- Responsibility for the Soviet era drone that crashed in Croatia hasn’t been established. An important point that your own reference article makes clear; “only an investigation can determine who launched the drone — the Russians or the Ukrainians — after the aircraft is pulled out of a large crater created after impact.

Both Russia and Ukraine have denied they launched the drone. Military experts say Ukraine is the only known current operator of the Tu-141, which has a wingspan of nearly 4 meters (12 feet) and weighs just over 6 tons”.

 

[Deuce]

No.
I'm pointing to the bulls***!

Lol - why haven't NATO want to declare a no-fly zone over Ukraine?
NATO says they don't want a "direct" confrontation with Russia!

A no-fly zone is enforced how? By NATO fighter aircraft. What happens when Russian aircraft violate the no-fly zone? We shoot them down. Now we're at war. You didn't think this through.

What are we doing supplying Ukraine to fight against Russia - like as if it's not being announced publicly!
You telling me Putin doesn't know NATO is behind all the military supplies being used by Ukraine?
You don't call that a confrontation?

What do you call these sanctions?
You don't call that a confrontation?


Warning China and other countries from aiding Russia.
You don't call that a confrontation against Russia?
And......a confrontational message against China? And, other nations that might be friendly to Russia?

The world treats these things differently than actually firing a missile from a US fighter jet at a Russian aircraft. That's just how it is.

 

[tosca1]

You better pay attention to the contents of your own posts.

Refer to post #18. Here's what you responded to:

Deuce
So you're saying NATO should attack Russia?

Which you've answered:

That appears to @tosca1’s ignorant assertion.

The above two comments (and several other like posts) of yours clearly state your desire that NATO countries become directly involved in Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s invasion.

....so you see, you've changed your tune. That's more like it.

ATTACKING RUSSIA," isn't exactly the same as becoming directly involved in the DEFENSIVE STANCE with Ukraine!
You saying I want NATO to be an aggressor! I don't!

 

[tosca1]

The US is doing what it can without going to war with Russia.

They're already at war with Russia.
Russia sees the sanction as a declaration of war. He said so.
Lol - they might not want to see and admit that as war.....but, Russia sees it that way.

If you take sides in a war, and provide ammunition to one side to whack the other side - you're part of that war.
Like, you're financing Ukraine to do the fighting for you.

That's why it's bulls***.

Why don't they come up with another excuse?

Because Russia has nuclear weapons, the US and NATO won't get into war with them

....and, that's quite obvious to everyone. Especially to Russia and China!
They're cowed by Russia's nuclear capability.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Refer to post #18. Here's what you responded to:

Wrong. My initial post referenced all of your previous posts.

....so you see, you've changed your tune.

If you think so, you’re mistaken.

That's more like it. ATTACKING RUSSIA," isn't exactly the same as becoming directly involved in the DEFENSIVE STANCE with Ukraine!
You saying I want NATO to be an aggressor! I don't!

Are you even capable of understanding that for every action there is a reaction?

If NATO forces become directly militarily involved in Ukraine, the Russian government will view it as an act of war against their country.

Geezus @tosca1, try to pull your head out.

 

[Craig234]

They're already at war with Russia.
Russia sees the sanction as a declaration of war. He said so.
Lol - they might not want to see and admit that as war.....but, Russia sees it that way.

If you take sides in a war, and provide ammunition to one side to whack the other side - you're part of that war.
Like, you're financing Ukraine to do the fighting for you.

That's why it's bulls***.

Why don't they come up with another excuse?

So, you don't understand the difference between the lines nuclear powers have drawn of arming allies, and direct conflict.

....and, that's quite obvious to everyone. Especially to Russia and China!
They're cowed by Russia's nuclear capability.

Yes, apparently it's news to you nuclear war is something to not have. Luckily Biden is cowed by nuclear war instead of rushing to have it as you are advocating.

 

[tosca1]

A no-fly zone is enforced how? By NATO fighter aircraft. What happens when Russian aircraft violate the no-fly zone? We shoot them down. Now we're at war. You didn't think this through.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you're already at war!

The world treats these things differently than actually firing a missile from a US fighter jet at a Russian aircraft. That's just how it is.

You mean...........the liberal kind of people.

 

[tosca1]

So, you don't understand the difference between the lines nuclear powers have drawn of arming allies, and direct conflict.

I do understand that.
But - really.....what's the difference?
It's still a confrontation!

Ukraine is being used as the "buffer" between Russia and neighboring countries who are NATO members. With Ukraine falling to Russia, Russia will be at their doorstep.

Yes, apparently it's news to you nuclear war is something to not have. Luckily Biden is cowed by nuclear war instead of rushing to have it as you are advocating.

What's stopping Putin from using nuclear weapon?

Lol - have you forgotten that Putin decided to have this war.............without any provocation from Ukraine?
You seriously think he won't do what he wants to do.............with, or without any provocation from NATO?

Hello? Since when does a dictator like Putin go by any rules?


I don't want a nuclear war. But, I'm realistic.

 

[Craig234]

I do understand that.
But - really.....what's the difference?

There's a difference in effect, in the history, in the understandings; one leads to nuclear war and one doesn't. You do understand saying you understand the difference and then there is no difference doesn't make sense.

It's still a confrontation!

Like other things. Economic sanctions, voting against them in the UN, saying nasty things.

Ukraine is being used as the "buffer" between Russia and neighboring countries who are NATO members. With Ukraine falling to Russia, Russia will be at their doorstep.

And vice versa. But with today's technology, treaties are probably more important than borders.

What's stopping Putin from using nuclear weapon?

Little but his level of provocation.

Lol - have you forgotten that Putin decided to have this war.............without any provocation from Ukraine?
You seriously think he won't do what he wants to do.............with, or without any provocation from NATO?

Yes. Has he launched nukes? Would he like to? Has he attacks NATO countries on his border? Would he like to?

Hello? Since when does a dictator like Putin go by any rules?

Luckily for us, he follows at least one.

I don't want a nuclear war. But, I'm realistic.

That's a pretty abused word to try to justify wrong things. You're not being a realist.

You need to get an understanding what leads to nuclear war. There is always a risk of it we can't control. Putin could just decide to destroy the world. Some things increase the danger. Biden understands that.

 

[tosca1]

There's a difference in effect, in the history, in the understandings; one leads to nuclear war and one doesn't. You do understand saying you understand the difference and then there is no difference doesn't make sense.

I make sense. They don't.

Like other things. Economic sanctions, voting against them in the UN, saying nasty things.

Which Putin had already said, is a declaration of war!

Lol - no matter what NATO says, if Putin sees it as a war with NATO - it is a war!
That's the problem with NATO. It's more of a bureacracy with all their talking points!
That's all it is with them.....................TALKING POINTS!
Because, nobody among these leaders want their voters to think they wanted this war!

They're more concerned about their own skin at the polls.
And PUTIN sees that and would exploit that!
He knows their weakness! The POLLS!

And vice versa. But with today's technology, treaties are probably more important than borders.

Ask Ukraine, who has been promised protection if she'll give up her nuclear weapons.
That's what that woman was lamenting, and had opined: Would Putin have dared do this atrocity if Ukraine has nuclear capability?
Lol - if words aren't worth squat, treaties won't meant anything either!
In the end, everyone for himself.

Thus - it's a mistake to be dependent of any other nation(s), or be lulled by the seeming security of being with a group.
When shits hit the fan, you can't really know if you;ve got security or not.
It took Germany forever to decide to get on board with the sanction.

 

[tosca1]

Little but his level of provocation.

...which can be anything.

What provocation did Ukraine do?

Yes. Has he launched nukes? Would he like to? Has he attacks NATO countries on his border? Would he like to?

Luckily for us, he follows at least one.

Lol - that's the kind of reasoning that makes a nation gets owned by a dictator.

Do you see how he kills people in Ukraine?
You see that as a reassurance?
Does it have to be death by nuke?
You're thanking him now that he hasn't used a nuke?

That's a pretty abused word to try to justify wrong things. You're not being a realist.

You need to get an understanding what leads to nuclear war. There is always a risk of it we can't control. Putin could just decide to destroy the world. Some things increase the danger. Biden understands that.

Jus because it's a cliche doesn't mean it's not appropriate. Abused, or not..........................it's realistic.

 

[Craig234]

Which Putin had already said, is a declaration of war!

Yet he didn't respond militarily, did he - a hint there are different levels.

That's the problem with NATO. It's more of a bureacracy with all their talking points!
That's all it is with them.....................TALKING POINTS!

I guess they shouldn't have bureaucracy. Let's change it to a million people running around with massive military equipment without any organization. No, that's not all it is.

Because, nobody among these leaders want their voters to think they wanted this war!

Huh?

They're more concerned about their own skin at the polls.

No, while that can be an issue, they're acting against popular opinion for the safety of the world. Their voters support a no-fly zone - until the pollster reminds them how much that increases the chance of nuclear war.

And PUTIN sees that and would exploit that!

That's the benefit of having 6,000 nuclear weapons. Don't like it, get rid of them.

He knows their weakness! The POLLS!

I'm getting tired of having to repeat to some people that nuclear war is bad.

Ask Ukraine, who has been promised protection if she'll give up her nuclear weapons.
That's what that woman was lamenting, and had opined: Would Putin have dared do this atrocity if Ukraine has nuclear capability?

I doubt it. There were tradeoffs. It could have been designed better. They didn't feel they could maintain them.

Lol - if words aren't worth squat, treaties won't meant anything either!

Nonsense. You're trying to say a non-binding, non-legal, non-treaty promise is the same as a treaty commitment. It's not.

In the end, everyone for himself.

You're ranting wrongly.

Thus - it's a mistake to be dependent of any other nation(s)

I guess many nations would like a nuclear arsenal. That would end well. You're describing problems caused by the existence of nuclear weapons and how they can be abused. You're right. So let's get rid of them. Until we do, we don't have much better answer. Because getting mad at the abuse and escalating to nuclear war isn't an option.

When shits hit the fan, you can't really know if you;ve got security or not.

They have a pretty good idea.

It took Germany forever to decide to get on board with the sanction.

You can call it slow, but it was a few days.

Yes, the global political system is flawed. Russia is pushing it to a limit, and they're a tiny bit of what China is likely to do. Did you have a suggestion? You criticized democracy. Want politicians who don't give a crap about citizens like Putin and China?

 

[rickc]

Well I believe in the long run the sanctions applied by a united western world will damage Russia more than any shooting war. Cripple their economy and they can't afford to rebuild their military. The Ukrainians are doing a hell of a job decimating Putins war machine.

My hope is even when Putin retreats from Ukraine the western world will keep the sanctions in place. Isolate Russia from the western world.