- Joined
- Sep 2, 2017
- Messages
- 33,607
- Reaction score
- 5,193
- Location
- GDL/Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
great news from USA, it will always stand for Freedom , putler pooped his pants for sure
"USA and our allies need to rapidly counter "Russia"’s military aggression in the Kerch Strait with strong and resolute action
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senators Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), and 39 of their colleagues introduced a resolution calling for a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in response to Russia’s recent aggressive actions in the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov.
“The United States and our allies need to rapidly counter Russia’s military aggression in the Kerch Strait with strong and resolute action,” Sen. Johnson said. “Assembling a multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea to help ensure safe passage into the Sea of Azov, combined with cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is exactly the kind of response Putin needs to see.”
“The recent provocative military actions from Russia and revelations about its extensive cyber disinformation campaigns in the U.S. are warnings to the rest of the world that Vladimir Putin has no intention of stopping his aggressive campaign against Western democracies or Ukraine,” said Sen. Durbin. “The world must work together to stop this Russian assault on democracy and Ukraine sovereignty. I am proud to support this resolution and urge my colleagues to reaffirm this message of deterring further aggression from the Russian Federation.”
“Ukraine is the front line of Vladimir Putin’s struggle against the free world and, last month, Russia’s attack on Ukrainian ships near the Kerch Strait marked a dangerous escalation of that conflict. We have to respond, and respond with strength. Weakness will only provoke further aggression. The United States must enhance our lethal aid to Ukraine, especially to enhance its maritime capabilities. And working together with our European allies, we should conduct freedom of navigation operations in the Black Sea to deter further bullying. Ukraine has never asked Americans or Europeans to do their fighting for them. They have asked only that we give them the tools they need to defend themselves and their country. Ukrainians need and deserve our help. This resolution is the right step,” said Sen. Inhofe.
Sen. Johnson is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation and Sen. Durbin is Senate Minority Whip. Joining Sens. Johnson and Durbin in cosponsoring the resolution were Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation; and Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)."
I remember times when Russia didn't.I remember when Democrats didn't want to run the risk of nuclear war :roll:
you really dont know ?What has become of America?
I remember times when Russia didn't.
WE do NOT share a continent.The great mistake, the great poison, was NATO expansion.
Russian doesn't want war, but now it is forced to plan for one. Playing around on Russia's borders is a dangerous and stupid game which nobody would have contemplated during the Soviet era (when of course Russia also had a buffer zone).
Now the strategic situation leaves Russia vulnerable. It has to either prepare for a potentially catastrophic war in which Europe could be destroyed, or capitulate to the US (as most of Europe did long ago).
We share a continent. Let's not play silly games to please your favorite Uncle.
Quit trying to turn this into geography, I clearly pointed out that taking is not sharing.Well, I know geography seems to be a weak point, but we do share a continent ......~
IT takes two to tango the thermonuclear dance and both American and Russian aggression are at the root of this crisis. America didn't invade Crimea and isn't destabilising the Donbas. That's on Russia and Russia alone. Russia and its leadership have to take responsibility for the harm they are doing to international relations and global peace. So does the United States. Americans and Russians are defacto enemies not because they are all that different but because they are too similar in their embrace of militarism as a tool of early-resort. Be it American SOF destabilising parts of Africa or Latin America or Russian "Little Green Men" and hybrid warfare agents destabilising the Russian near-abroad, both powers are acting out of arrogance and with hubris by forcing their policies on other states by force of arms. The blow-back is starting as a near bankrupt America declines in its global influence and that blow-back will hit Russia hard too, overtaxing it's far more meagre economic resources. You are both doomed to the death of empires.
In the nuclear age, war doesn't work anymore, except as a very profitable make-work project for arms manufacturers and mercenary companies at the taxpayers' expense. Both America and Russia must learn this lesson soon or both states are doomed to collapse under the economic burden of imperial militarism. You are both dangerous dinosaurs seemingly bound for imperial extinction but the vital question for the rest of us is will you take the Whole planet with you into oblivion in your geopolitical and hegemonic deathroes? A pox on both your houses.
Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Quite right to an extent, but .........
Russia does not have an empire, the US does. That;s why the latter spends more on defence than the rest of the world combined ......... $750bn, a colossal and bankrupting figure but when you have 200+ foreign military bases and you seek to control the entire world ......:roll:
Russia went through its loss of empire in the 1990s. The US is yet to face its day or reckoning, or day of realism, when it and its satellites will realise they aren't what they think they are.
Quite right to an extent, but .........
Russia does not have an empire, the US does. That;s why the latter spends more on defence than the rest of the world combined ......... $750bn, a colossal and bankrupting figure but when you have 200+ foreign military bases and you seek to control the entire world ......:roll:
Russia went through its loss of empire in the 1990s. The US is yet to face its day or reckoning, or day of realism, when it and its satellites will realise they aren't what they think they are.
Russia is a gas station with nuclear weapons run by gangsters. Although you tried to, you couldn't afford empire, which is comforting considering who is at the Kremlin helm.
Rogue Valley:
History is full of tales of states which under-estimated Russia/the USSR and paid dearly for that miscalculation. Russia is far more powerful than you portray it and far less powerful than how Westphalian wishes it were. But its strength is waxing again and it is becoming a force to be reckoned with once again. Dismissing it as a nuclear-armed petrol station is profoundly unwise. It's a damn big chain of petrol stations with tanks and AICV's parked at every pump and watched over by modern combat aircraft, satellites, nuclear missiles and nuclear-armed submarines. Not even Exxon/Esso has that kind of military clout.
Those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. The US is already mired in one graveyard of empires (Afghanistan) and if it thrusts it's free foot into the second historical imperial graveyard of Russia it may trigger a cascade of events which either overwhelms America's capacity to sustain war or ends in a thermo-nuclear exchange. Neither outcome would be good for the world and so caution and patience coupled with policies designed to progressively increase friction on Russia's expansion are called for, not full frontal confrontation.
Ukraine may be reduced or demolished before the ever increasing friction grinds Russia to a military halt but that is better than a global thermo-nuclear exchange which demolishes human civilisation and risks the species extinction. We must be in for the long game and I fear that that long game will only begin once the present US administration is changed and wiser heads are in charge of US and Russian policy.
Cheers.
Evilroddy.
For God's sake, why would anyone use Ukraine as a metric for military might? Would you compare the Philippines to Russia?
It takes the Kremlin over a week to get a tank from Rostov to Tartus, and it being extremely vulnerable all the way.
Russia is strong in armor, artillery, and electronic warfare, but there are fatal flaws virtually everywhere else.
In addition, Russia no longer has the population to be as careless as Konev and Zhukov.
Russia is also perfectly capable of reducing the US to radioactive rubble.
This is yet another fatal flaw. Thinking MAD is a one-way street in which Russia would [somehow] survive.
Nuclear winter knows no borders. There are no winners which is why it is silly to tout nuclear capability.
This is yet another fatal flaw. Thinking MAD is a one-way street in which Russia would [somehow] survive.
Nuclear winter knows no borders. There are no winners which is why it is silly to tout nuclear capability.
It's a last resort, but still better than capitulation to Washington.
The final resort .... suicide.
Things are pretty grim when suicide is considered a viable military option.
Once nukes are used, the game changes. And not in the delusional way you picture above either.Yes, they would be grim. But MAD also rests of a concept that nuclear weapons are usable in some circumstances.
For example, using tactical nukes against US armored divisions moving into western Russia. Moscow would do that (it's in our defence policy). Your people would die and you'd withdraw because if Russia is prepared to use nukes on its own territory it sure as heck would do so against the US if needed.
Americans would understand this. They don't want to die, and they know you couldn't even control Iraq after invading it.
Once nukes are used, the game changes. And not in the delusional way you picture above either.
in your position you need lessons on practically everything from whoever shows sufficient benevolence to offer them.I don't need lessons in nuclear theory or practise from someone who lives in a satellite state of the US.
it no longer being a one-sided game, yes.Yes, only the US has ever been barbaric enough to use them, but the consequences are unpredictable.
Don't keep invading territories not yours and none of us will have to find out.But RV's nonchalant supposition that Russia would rather surrender than use nuclear weapons is not just illiterate and delusional, but positively dangerous.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?