YARS has been loaded.

[Davin]

No.

You missed it. Yars was placed in a silo and made combat ready . This is an escalation in response to our escalation in Ukraine.

You better go hide in your bunker quick. RUN RUN RUN

 

[Fledermaus]

No.

You missed it. Yars was placed in a silo and made combat ready . This is an escalation in response to our escalation in Ukraine.

IMA SKEERED.

 

[Questerr]

Read the history, pull out the old maps, realize what Russian has long said.

We threaten Russia with the expansion of NATO and our influence in Ukraine.

Can you image if the shoe were in the other foot?

Heck, we invade foreign countries all the time with far far less security concerns.

How is the expansion of a defensive alliance a threat to Russia unless Russia was planning to invade the countries that joined NATO?

 

[Juin]

.
Juin said:
It is for Russians to determine what are their security concerns, and to act to address those concerns.

No doubt. It was certainly for Germans to determine what are their security concerns (1930s-40s), and to act to address those concerns (by invading Poland).

And the list is long. Especially when couched in grandiose terms like "Manifest Destiny"; a project that crushed countless indigenous nations from sea to shining sea. I suppose the problem with Russians is they do not couch their security concerns in grandiose terms

 

[Juin]

How is the expansion of a defensive alliance a threat to Russia unless Russia was planning to invade the countries that joined NATO?

A military alliance is by definition a threat, at least to someone. Else why set up a military alliance in the first place? The matter of the aims and goals of a military alliance- defensive or offensive- is a matter of concern internal to the members of the military alliance, not to those outside it.

Russia is supposed to take on face value Nato claims that it is a military alliance? What stops Nato from going from defense to offense on a dime?

Its kind of like say a man is walking his pitbull in the streats without a leash. A corncened granny asks him to leash his pitbull, but he says his pitbull is a defensive pitbull and will attack only if attacked. Is that supposed to allay the granny's concerns?

 

[Juin]

.
Juin said:
It can also be argued that it has been Russia in a state of continuous appeasement in the face of Nato expanding closer and closer to her borders. There will be hell to pay if say China attempted same expansions like Nato in Central America.

Are you able to tell us?

Why are countries bordering Russia trying to join NATO?

That is your job. You are making the case for Kyiv and Nato. I make the case for Russia. And from the Russian perspective it is irrelevant why or how a military alliance hostile to Russia implants itself on Russia's borders; the job of a Russian President- Putin or another- is to keep hostile military alliances as far from Russia as possible.

Incidentally that is the job of the President of the United States as well. How or why Cuba wanted Russian nukes on its soil was irrelevant from the US perpective- correctly so- JFK's job was to make sure a hostile military alliance did not plant nukes on its periphery

 

[Juin]

Hostile?

NATO is hostile to Russia?

Citation?

Russia considers Nato a hostile alliance. That is Russia's call.

 

[Juin]

NATO is a sovereign nation, like China and Russia?

When did this happen?

Citation?

Nato is a military alliance. I am not sure what your point is. A military alliance is a force multiplier and therefore a more potent threat than individual nations. If specific individual nations pose a military threat, that threat is multiplied if same specific nations came together in an alliance

 

[noonereal]

How is the expansion of a defensive alliance a threat to Russia unless Russia was planning to invade the countries that joined NATO?

I am speechless.

People just can't get themselves out of the mind set "my tribe good, vitreous and noble." All others bad with no valid reasons for even existing.

If it was us and the Soviet Union instead of Nato expanded, we would feel very threatened and a need to do something about it. FACT.

Why posts cannot be object only speaks to the dangerous limitations humans as a species.

 

[noonereal]

IMA SKEERED.

One should not be scared but rather reasoned and pragmatic not all cowboy tough guy nonsense.

Peace

 

[Chagos]

.
~................................I make the case for Russia. ............~

You only think that's what you're doing, considering what a gigantic fail your efforts represent.

 

[Antiwar]

One should not be scared but rather reasoned and pragmatic not all cowboy tough guy nonsense.

Peace

Everyone should be scared.

 

[Juin]

.
Questerr said:
How is the expansion of a defensive alliance a threat to Russia unless Russia was planning to invade the countries that joined NATO?

I am speechless.
People just can't get themselves out of the mind set "my tribe good, vitreous and noble." All others bad with no valid reasons for even existing.
If it was us and the Soviet Union instead of Nato expanded, we would feel very threatened and a need to do something about it. FACT.
Why posts cannot be object only speaks to the dangerous limitations humans as a species.

There is an intrinsic contradiction in the the formulation: expansion of a defensive alliance. Especially from the perspective of those outside the military alliance. Imagine some "defensive military alliance" expands into Canada, then into Mexico, then Cuba, is the US not supposed to say: wait a minute, where the hell do you think you are going?

 

[noonereal]

There is an intrinsic contradiction in the the formulation: expansion of a defensive alliance. Especially from the perspective of those outside the military alliance. Imagine some "defensive military alliance" expands into Canada, then into Mexico, then Cuba, is the US not supposed to say: wait a minute, where the hell do you think you are going?

The problem is all the Kool-Aid that has been consumed.

People are just not objective, as I have said.

 

[Juin]

The problem is all the Kool-Aid that has been consumed.

People are just not objective, as I have said.

The whole "defensive alliance" proposition has an element of fraud in it. First "defensive" is vague and undefined. Has everyone agreed on what "defensive" is? And when a military alliance contracts an alliance with a new candidate who has some serious issues with its neighbours, are the natural subsequent developments still defensive?

The ancient Romans were able practitioners of the defensive alliance doctrine. It was all a fraud, as it gave them a legal cover for their expansions. The first Punic Wars is a case in point. Carthage considered Sicily as within her sphere of influence. Rome contracted an alliance with one of the warring factions in Sicily. And it was game on.

And lets also ask how little England managed to acquire one of the biggest empires the world ever knows? There was never a population in England to field armies to directly subjugate the overseas colonies. The English basically borrowed from the Roman playbook. The English, on arriving say in India or Africa, contracted alliances with little parties who before the arrival of the English had to answer to some big local power. Of course the big local power would react by trying to quash their escaping vassals. The English would then mass a coalition of the underdogs to take down the former top dog.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Are you able to tell us?
Why are countries bordering Russia trying to join NATO?

That is your job. You are making the case for Kyiv and Nato. I make the case for Russia. And from the Russian perspective it is irrelevant why or how a military alliance hostile to Russia implants itself on Russia's borders; the job of a Russian President- Putin or another- is to keep hostile military alliances as far from Russia as possible.

Your reply makes it look like you are woefully ignorant
of the requisite knowledge crucial to a meaningful understanding of the situation under debate
or like you are so full of shit you're merely farting through your keyboard.

In either case, ignorant or insincere, your arguments can be dismissed without further consideration.

Incidentally that is the job of the President of the United States as well. How or why Cuba wanted Russian nukes on its soil was irrelevant from the US perpective- correctly so- JFK's job was to make sure a hostile military alliance did not plant nukes on its periphery

let's say that non-sequitur is true ftsoa
Context is key.
At the time, JFK was not on an internet DEBATE message board.
You, however, are.

That's just one of the critical differences between you and JFK.
You're no Jack Kennedy.

 

[Questerr]

A military alliance is by definition a threat, at least to someone. Else why set up a military alliance in the first place? The matter of the aims and goals of a military alliance- defensive or offensive- is a matter of concern internal to the members of the military alliance, not to those outside it.

Russia is supposed to take on face value Nato claims that it is a military alliance? What stops Nato from going from defense to offense on a dime?

Its kind of like say a man is walking his pitbull in the streats without a leash. A corncened granny asks him to leash his pitbull, but he says his pitbull is a defensive pitbull and will attack only if attacked. Is that supposed to allay the granny's concerns?

Defensive alliances are only a threat to nations that want to launch wars of aggression. Does Russia want to launch wars of aggression against its neighbors?

Modifying the NATO agreement into an offensive alliance can not be done “on a dime”. It would take at best months and be telegraphed to the entire world. Also half the alliance if not almost all of it would probably quit the organization.

 

[Questerr]

I am speechless.

People just can't get themselves out of the mind set "my tribe good, vitreous and noble." All others bad with no valid reasons for even existing.

If it was us and the Soviet Union instead of Nato expanded, we would feel very threatened and a need to do something about it. FACT.

Why posts cannot be object only speaks to the dangerous limitations humans as a species.

Again, how is Russia threatened by the expansion of a defensive alliance? Is Russia planning on invading the nations joining NATO?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The problem is all the Kool-Aid that has been consumed.

People are just not objective, as I have said.

Except for you and everyone who thinks like you, right?

 

[Fledermaus]

That is your job. You are making the case for Kyiv and Nato. I make the case for Russia. And from the Russian perspective it is irrelevant why or how a military alliance hostile to Russia implants itself on Russia's borders; the job of a Russian President- Putin or another- is to keep hostile military alliances as far from Russia as possible.

It has been explained ad nauseum.

USSR/Russia does bad things -> NATO grows

 

[lwf]

I have a feeling Putin might just test the waters. Fire off one lower-yield weapon, not at a city but perhaps at an area he deems Ukraine's troops are highly concentrated. See what the reaction is.

Because... would we really act on MAD in that situation?

I would be surprised if Putin would be that stupid. If he did use a tactical nuke in Ukraine, I don't suspect that we would respond with nukes in that case. But I do think NATO would get directly involved in the conflict at that point, and it would be an open invitation from Putin for NATO to line missile batteries all along their eastern borders pointed directly at Russia. All of those weapons systems that we've been holding back would be cleared by both parties to be sent to Ukraine.

I can't see any tactical advantage for Putin to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and I see a hell of a lot of consequences for Russia.

 

[Hamish Howl]

I am speechless.

People just can't get themselves out of the mind set "my tribe good, vitreous and noble." All others bad with no valid reasons for even existing.

If it was us and the Soviet Union instead of Nato expanded, we would feel very threatened and a need to do something about it. FACT.

Why posts cannot be object only speaks to the dangerous limitations humans as a species.

Good thing you're better than people, right?

 

[Mr Person]

I would be surprised if Putin would be that stupid. If he did use a tactical nuke in Ukraine, I don't suspect that we would respond with nukes in that case. But I do think NATO would get directly involved in the conflict at that point, and it would be an open invitation from Putin for NATO to line missile batteries all along their eastern borders pointed directly at Russia. All of those weapons systems that we've been holding back would be cleared by both parties to be sent to Ukraine.

I can't see any tactical advantage for Putin to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and I see a hell of a lot of consequences for Russia.

I think you're more likely right than not in terms of the outcome, gaming, and restraint in doing it. I'm perturbed about the possibility he might . . .

 

[KevinKohler]

Russia considers Nato a hostile alliance. That is Russia's call.

LOL.

 

[Mr Person]

Russia considers Nato a hostile alliance. That is Russia's call.

You brought levity to hell... how about that?