• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This Nuclear Chess Match Needs To Be Cancelled!

Your post above reminds me of a Tucker Carlson screed.

No one forced Putin to invade his neighbor Ukraine.

Putin's choice, Putin's War.

Shows how little you really know .

This was all agreed many moons ago by the Alliance and the US clearly told to do nothing overt to interfere .

That's why idiots like Sleepy and The Kamel nominally represent the US . It allows Russia to essentially totally dictate because nobody takes anything notionally coming out of DC seriously .

Anyhow the WH is locked up with a wall around it and nobody in it .
 
🤷 I havent seen any 'valid' concerns from Russia that I consider legitimate.

Erroneous, baseless 👆 assumption.

You keep providing evidence in your commentary that you support the absurd dominant narrative that Russia functions in a geopolitical vacuum.
 
You keep providing evidence in your commentary that you support the absurd dominant narrative that Russia functions in a geopolitical vacuum.

Erroneous, baseless 👆 assumption.

🤷 I havent seen any 'valid' concerns from Russia that I consider legitimate.
 
Erroneous, baseless 👆 assumption.

🤷 I havent seen any 'valid' concerns from Russia that I consider legitimate.

But have you seen any 'legitimate' concerns from Russia that YOU consider valid?

You should change your repeated dodge up a bit.
 
But have you seen any 'legitimate' concerns from Russia that YOU consider valid?

You should change your repeated dodge up a bit.

For this invasion? No.

Which one(s) do you consider valid and explain why?
 
Preemptive launch against Russia. It is our only choice. Trust our leaders.
 
I recall how scared so many of us were in October of 1962 when President Kennedy confronted Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev's attempted deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba. Kennedy let the Soviets know with a naval "quarantine" against Cuba that under no circumstances would he allow the USSR to deploy nuclear warheads that close to Washington, D.C. Had Khrushchev not backed down, it would have meant war, likely nuclear war.

Today, President Putin saw the specter of likely soon-to-be NATO Ukraine harboring NATO forces, including nuclear and anti-nuclear missiles on their border with Russia, deployed way too close to Moscow. He warned Ukraine, but Ukrainian President Zelenskyy continued stating publicly that he wanted Ukraine to join NATO, which most of the country supported. President Putin was not going to wait for Ukraine to be part of NATO when any action he took against Ukraine to prevent missile deployment so visibly close to Moscow would require NATO nations to join in defense of Ukraine, in what would likely become an all-out nuclear war. So he took the only non-nuclear option he believed could deter NATO from accepting Ukraine: neutralize Ukraine's military so that NATO would not want to deploy missiles there, as without a Ukrainian military presence, there would be no security for the NATO missiles. Tragically, the ground war Putin was resigned to employ is destroying Ukraine, because unlike Khrushchev, Zelenskyy did not back down.
Bingo!

Funny how we all understand out concerns about Cuba in 62 but think it ridiculous Russia has similar concerns with Ukraine.
 
Russia is the aggressor here, they are invading a neighboring country. Ukraine has the right to defend themselves.
 
The actual aggressor is NATO, cornering Russia despite repeated warnings to refrain from doing so.

They were actually in the process of integrating Ukraine into NATO without admitting officially, doing "exercises"(arming it and indoctrinating it against Russia), and even building naval bases.
 
The actual aggressor is NATO, cornering Russia despite repeated warnings to refrain from doing so.

They were actually in the process of integrating Ukraine into NATO without admitting officially, doing "exercises"(arming it and indoctrinating it against Russia), and even building naval bases.
a) They were nowhere near ready to integrate Ukraine into NATO, NATO was far from unanimous on Ukrainian membership. Ukraine for sure was desperate to join due to the constant threat of Russia, but NATO really wanted to avoid taking on a member with an active border dispute with Russia. So that is clearly false.

b) Russia doesn't want an independent Ukraine on their border, and that's really all there was to it.
 
I recall in 1987 when I lied down in front of a bus carrying workers to the nuclear test site in Mercury, Nevada. We were more active then. Time has passed. I can't help but wonder if a numbness reaction to the lingering horrific thought of being vaporized in a nuclear war has set in and partially contributed to that indifference.

Yes, the downside of this war being brought to us through social media means that most come to sympathize with those taking the brunt of it and direct their anger at the side inflicting the horrible damage. But that doesn't mean those winning are the bad guys.

Calls for more war efforts against Russia will only hasten the terrible inevitable of nuclear annihilation.

This could all end now if Zelenskyy would follow through on what he admitted to a French newspaper roughly a week ago that maybe it was a bad idea for him to insist on Ukraine being a NATO member. Considering it was his in effect nuclear threat against Russia that thereby started the invasion, he would do well to accede to all of Putin's surrender demands. The longer this war lingers, the greater the chances Putin will eventually launch.
Yes. I can't understand why Zelensky is still advocating and pressing for a no-fly zone. He surely cannot be unaware of the appalling danger that represents; one downed aircraft on either side of the conflict and the consequences of the inevitable escalation are unthinkable.
 
The actual aggressor is NATO, cornering Russia despite repeated warnings to refrain from doing so.

They were actually in the process of integrating Ukraine into NATO without admitting officially, doing "exercises"(arming it and indoctrinating it against Russia), and even building naval bases.
NATO has done nothing. It may have escaped your attention but Russia is the aggressor here; invading a nation which did nothing to provoke Putin's war. If Putin wants to return to the joys of Soviet Russia, let him; within Russia's borders.
 
Preemptive launch against Russia. It is our only choice. Trust our leaders.
I'm assuming this is an attempt at satire. Russia has a 'launch on warning' capability; any attempt at attacking Russia would inevitably invite devastating retaliation which few would survive. Including us, here in Britain, with both UK military and US NSA facilities targeted. We came very close...
 
Last edited:
Preemptive launch against Russia. It is our only choice. Trust our leaders.
Russian retaliatory strikes would happen before the nukes arrive at target, Russia can detect a nuclear strike against them, has been able to do that since the 70s.
 
This thread started with idealistic garbage and is quickly devolving into conspiracy theory lunacy.

Nothing gets Russia off the hook for what they are doing, even if there is a good argument that the cold war took both sides to awaken.
 
The actual aggressor is NATO, cornering Russia despite repeated warnings to refrain from doing so.

Total bullshit, and you're not from Sweden.
 
a) They were nowhere near ready to integrate Ukraine into NATO, NATO was far from unanimous on Ukrainian membership. Ukraine for sure was desperate to join due to the constant threat of Russia, but NATO really wanted to avoid taking on a member with an active border dispute with Russia. So that is clearly false.

b) Russia doesn't want an independent Ukraine on their border, and that's really all there was to it.
a) Ukraine ALREADY is integrated to a certain degree, STEALTHILY, UNOFFICIALLY!
They got NATO WEAPONS, NATO TRAINING and WERE BUILDING BASES FOR NATO SHIPS with funding from NATO COUNTRIES! They even took part in NATO illegal operations in Afghanistan!

NATO is NOTHING MORE than an American TOOL meant to be used against America's enemies(or merely "unfriendly" countries), the main target being Russia!

It has never been the defensive organization it claims to be, it only attacked innocent countries that never attacked any NATO member!(former Yugoslavia was a pro-Russian country, Libya was an older US enemy, Afghanistan was just a very unlucky poor scapegoat as they didn't want to blame the Saudis or perhaps even themselves)

b) Russia does want an independent Ukraine in the sense of NEUTRAL, not "independent" in having the freedom to bring Russia's enemies on its soil
 
a) Ukraine ALREADY is integrated to a certain degree, STEALTHILY, UNOFFICIALLY!
They got NATO WEAPONS, NATO TRAINING and WERE BUILDING BASES FOR NATO SHIPS with funding from NATO COUNTRIES! They even took part in NATO illegal operations in Afghanistan!

NATO is NOTHING MORE than an American TOOL meant to be used against America's enemies(or merely "unfriendly" countries), the main target being Russia!

It has never been the defensive organization it claims to be, it only attacked innocent countries that never attacked any NATO member!(former Yugoslavia was a pro-Russian country, Libya was an older US enemy, Afghanistan was just a very unlucky poor scapegoat as they didn't want to blame the Saudis or perhaps even themselves)

b) Russia does want an independent Ukraine in the sense of NEUTRAL, not "independent" in having the freedom to bring Russia's enemies on its soil
Russia doesn't want a neutral Ukraine, they want a Ukraine that dances to their pipe.
 
NATO is NOTHING MORE than an American TOOL meant to be used against America's enemies(or merely "unfriendly" countries), the main target being Russia!

Please list the times when the US has done this, sourced.
 
not "independent" in having the freedom to bring Russia's enemies on its soil

Who Ukraine chooses to pal around with is none of Russia's business and vice-versa.
 
Russia doesn't want a neutral Ukraine, they want a Ukraine that dances to their pipe.
Russia does want precisely a neutral Ukraine! As long as NATO, the US or US allies are not present in any quality or form in Ukraine, Russia has no problem with Ukraine.

Please list the times when the US has done this, sourced.
They're listed in that same post. Pretty notorious events, you can google yourself for details.

Who Ukraine chooses to pal around with is none of Russia's business and vice-versa.
The war is happening(and will continue for some time) precisely because of this kind of thinking. Those who border major military powers don't have the luxury of choosing their military alliances, unless they're themselves major military powers.
 
Russia does want precisely a neutral Ukraine! As long as NATO, the US or US allies are not present in any quality or form in Ukraine, Russia has no problem with Ukraine.
Russia had a neutral Ukraine, Russia attacked neutral Ukraine.
 
The war is happening(and will continue for some time) precisely because of this kind of thinking. Those who border major military powers don't have the luxury of choosing their military alliances, unless they're themselves major military powers.
It appears that Russia is no longer a major military power and should divest itself of nuclear weapons as did Ukraine.
 
Back
Top Bottom