| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7327 Posts
On March 05 2022 06:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Unbelievable... one has to wonder how European intelligence is processing this. I dont believe it. People say all sort of shit to incite. Look at Lindsey Graham. Outside of using nuclear weapons, Russia isnt competing with NATO forces. They wont have the resources after Ukraine. | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
| ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On March 05 2022 07:54 Sadist wrote: I dont believe it. People say all sort of shit to incite. Look at Lindsey Graham. Outside of using nuclear weapons, Russia isnt competing with NATO forces. They wont have the resources after Ukraine. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the original plan. If Ukraine had just rolled over in a couple days, I think they would've done it. At this point though they've probably expended or lost a decades production worth of military hardware and ammo, and will need to use 1-2 more before the war ends, one way or another, with zero ways to replenish due to sanctions. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
On March 05 2022 05:29 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: @pmh I personally don't see this approach as being middle of the road at all. Russia has been economically and culturally cut off from the West in the span of two weeks. It's close on the hardest stance that could be taken without risking a MAD scenario. You are right. After thinking about it a bit more i have to agree. Which is one (though not the only) reason why i removed my post. But since it got quoted. This is indeed as far as Nato can realistically go,maybe even further. Verry close to getting directly involved. It is going much further then anything that would have been possible during the cold war. But its still a very bad outcome for everyone involved including Russia itself and that is very saddening. There must be a better solution i feel. I have been thinking about this a lot but i can not find it unfortunately. And just to be clear: My post was not meant as an argument to get directly involved. Nor as an argument to give in to russias demands and draw a new line. Just trying to look for alternatives to see if there potentially is an outcome that is better. As it looks now this is indeed impossible but something tells me that there must be a better alternative for all parties. Both Russia and Ukraine. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26505 Posts
On March 05 2022 09:01 plasmidghost wrote: Russia's committed pretty much every military resource they initially provisioned to the invasion. At this point, unless things in Ukraine collapse suddenly, I don't see them being able to invade anywhere else, not even Moldova I imagine it very much depends on how accurate, or not, the Vladimir Putin has gone mental hypothesis is. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On March 05 2022 09:07 pmh wrote: You are right. After thinking about it a bit more i have to agree. Which is one (though not the only) reason why i removed my post. But since it got quoted. This is indeed as far as Nato can realistically go,maybe even further. Verry close to getting directly involved. It is going much further then anything that would have been possible during the cold war. But its still a very bad outcome for everyone involved including Russia itself and that is very saddening. There must be a better solution i feel. I have been thinking about this a lot but i can not find it unfortunately. And just to be clear: My post was not meant as an argument to get directly involved. Nor as an argument to give in to russias demands and draw a new line. Just trying to look for alternatives to see if there potentially is an outcome that is better. As it looks now this is indeed impossible but something tells me that there must be a better alternative for all parties. Both Russia and Ukraine. There's none. Ukraine wanted NATO. Russia didn't want Ukraine in NATO(technically they didn't want something else, but considering the NATO in the past 20 years it's the same). There's no middle solution because nobody wanted any. For the last 14 years the stance of countries has been: NATO was arguing that Ukraine has their right to choose and that they will accept anyone willing and commiting to it. Ukraine was arguing they are sovereign country and as such they choose NATO. And Russia was arguing they don't want so many NATO infrastructure next to their borders and that Ukraine and Georgia in NATO will be seen as a security risk and will be taken very seriously. There's no middle ground in this. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Can they please just stop going anywhere near nuclear stuff? | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18252 Posts
On March 05 2022 14:20 plasmidghost wrote: Finally some good news for the time being Good news? That just means there was more fighting around it, and will be again when Russia tries to retake it. And every battle has the chance of dealing more damage to it. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8043 Posts
On March 05 2022 10:19 deacon.frost wrote: There's none. Ukraine wanted NATO. Russia didn't want Ukraine in NATO(technically they didn't want something else, but considering the NATO in the past 20 years it's the same). There's no middle solution because nobody wanted any. For the last 14 years the stance of countries has been: NATO was arguing that Ukraine has their right to choose and that they will accept anyone willing and commiting to it. Ukraine was arguing they are sovereign country and as such they choose NATO. And Russia was arguing they don't want so many NATO infrastructure next to their borders and that Ukraine and Georgia in NATO will be seen as a security risk and will be taken very seriously. There's no middle ground in this. I don’t think the whole military infrastructure and whatnot is the reason Russia is so pissed at nato expansion. It’s about countries leaving its sphere of influence, and Russia not being able to just send the tanks in response. No one will ever attack Russia, it has the nuclear potential to blow up the planet, and no amount of encirclement, military bases and whatnot changes a thing to it. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22196 Posts
On March 05 2022 17:16 Biff The Understudy wrote: And there is the question what NATO in Ukraine does that NATO in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania doesn't already do (from a Russian perspective).I don’t think the whole military infrastructure and whatnot is the reason Russia is so pissed at nato expansion. It’s about countries leaving its sphere of influence, and Russia not being able to just send the tanks in response. No one will ever attack Russia, it has the nuclear potential to blow up the planet, and no amount of encirclement, military bases and whatnot changes a thing to it. The problem is indeed not Ukraine joining NATO but Ukraine turning to the West, away from Russia. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18252 Posts
On March 05 2022 18:37 xM(Z wrote: you can't "turn" to the west and keep being turned to the west without being in NATO. Russia will eventually "get you". As evidenced by the situation in Ukraine. But *why* is that? Why does Russia (or at least Russia's ruling class) cling to 19th century ideas of imperialism? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 05 2022 18:41 Acrofales wrote: As evidenced by the situation in Ukraine. But *why* is that? Why does Russia (or at least Russia's ruling class) cling to 19th century ideas of imperialism? Less imperialism and more like Russia's version of the Monroe Doctrine. Great powers don't tolerate foreign powers in their backyard. | ||
|
iFU.pauline
France1695 Posts
On March 05 2022 18:41 Acrofales wrote: As evidenced by the situation in Ukraine. But *why* is that? Why does Russia (or at least Russia's ruling class) cling to 19th century ideas of imperialism? Listen, they feel threaten by the west and NATO, up to you to consider that valid or not. The message is simple, any countries at their border that dare joining NATO will get a war, as much as it displeases us. We have to deal with it. So we continue with that NATO expansion and we know what's gonna happen. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5776 Posts
On March 05 2022 18:12 Gorsameth wrote: And there is the question what NATO in Ukraine does that NATO in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania doesn't already do (from a Russian perspective). The problem is indeed not Ukraine joining NATO but Ukraine turning to the West, away from Russia. And then there's the question of blatant hypocrisy. Russia has estimated 100-200k military personnel in Kaliningrad, along with lots of heavy equipment and nukes. Meanwhile, NATO hasn't moved its nukes for decades (not even from former West Germany to former East Germany), respecting the promise not to do that. NATO deployment in Poland, Baltics etc. was also only symbolic until the annexation of Crimea. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
why does US do it?, why does China do it?, why does France do it(in Africa)? etc ... it's the same shit but under different master. sure you can have opinions/thoughts/ideas over whom would fuck you gentler, and would like to choose your partner, but the drive for it it's the same. ...'cause if they're not fucked, then sooner or later, someone will come and fuck them, so then ... why not you?. | ||
| ||
|
|
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
