Agree? "If Putin is allowed to succeed in Ukraine, that threatens all of us." - UK's Ambassador to the U.S.

Man, Russia have consript Army, and it means that there are at least ten peacetime trained tank crews for every old tank.



Its not just about Putin and Stalin (it was correct for other Russian leaders, too). The very nature of our "problem" - aggression of genocidal, numerically, economically and partly technologically superior Western Barbarians doesn't leave us any other option.

You can just say, "The West is superior to Russia in every way"
 
Making a boogeyman out of Russia it's not going to neutralize what NATO has become. A close examination of the history of this region yields The ugly Truth that NATO is no longer just a defensive organization but has now become an expansionist entity interesting provoking warfare for the sake moving its borders Eastward.

Is NATO an expansionist entity? Sounds scary!
Which countries did NATO invade in order to expand?
When did NATO tanks suppress the citizens of a NATO member?
Any Hungarian Revolutions or Prague Springs in NATO history?
 
You can just say, "The West is superior to Russia in every way"
Of course, no. West is more numerous, more rich, sometimes (but definitely not always) more technologically adavanced. But we beat the West regulary, mostly because of our significant intellectual and moral superiority.
 
Is NATO an expansionist entity? Sounds scary!
Which countries did NATO invade in order to expand?
When did NATO tanks suppress the citizens of a NATO member?
Any Hungarian Revolutions or Prague Springs in NATO history?

NATO FINANCES THE OPPOSITION AND THEN ARMS THEM. THEY ARE PARTICULARLY KEEN ON DESTABILIZING RUSSIA. WITOUT ARGUING WHETER OR NOT THEY SHOULD...THIS IS WHAT THEY DO.
 
Is NATO an expansionist entity? Sounds scary!
Which countries did NATO invade in order to expand?
Serbia, Iraq for instance.
When did NATO tanks suppress the citizens of a NATO member?
Ukraine is, as they often say, de-facto NATO member, and their tanks supressed Russians. The UK is a NATO member, and they used tanks against Irish people. France used tanks against Agerian people.
Any Hungarian Revolutions or Prague Springs in NATO history?
Irish uprising, Algerian uprising, Russian spring. Riots in Los-Angeles back in 1992.
What is more important - there were a lot of NATO aggressions against non-NATO countries.
 
Last edited:
Of course, no. West is more numerous, more rich, sometimes (but definitely not always) more technologically adavanced. But we beat the West regulary, mostly because of our significant intellectual and moral superiority.

Where is Russia more technologically advanced? When was the last time you beat the West?
 
Serbia, Iraq for instance.

Ukraine is, as they often say, de-facto NATO member, and their tanks supressed Russians. The UK is a NATO member, and they used tanks against Irish people. France used tanks against Agerian people.

Irish uprising, Algerian uprising, Russian spring. Riots in Los-Angeles back in 1992.
What is more important - there were a lot of NATO aggressions against non-NATO countries.

Serbia joined NATO? When did NATO invade Iraq?

Ukraine is, as they often say, de-facto NATO member

Sounds like something idiots would say.

and their tanks suppressed Russians.

LOL!

Irish uprising, Algerian uprising, Russian spring. Riots in Los-Angeles back in 1992.

I don't remember NATO involvement in any of those. If you sober up, post some evidence.
 
In nuclear and hypersonic technologies, for example.


In a large war? In 1945.
They are beating the west right now in Ukraine.

Don’t waste your time with Toddthevestablishmentparrot. He’s a statist dupe who believes whatever the state tells him.
 
Russia has opposition?

Well sure.... In most of the border states.
I think you are mistaking me for a fan of Russia.
Though I would posit that they are no more or less imperial than the United States is.

There seems to be a broken promise here.
An agreement not to search out members on the border with Russia as I recall. Whether or not Russia would still be aggressive I don't know.
I'm not exactly an expert in Euro-Asian affairs.
Notwithstanding.... It's not hard to predict the consequences of a broken promise of that magnitude.

My problem with the whole thing is: why the hell should we be paying for it? Why are we involved at all?

Jo
 
Well sure.... In most of the border states.
I think you are mistaking me for a fan of Russia.
Though I would posit that they are no more or less imperial than the United States is.

There seems to be a broken promise here.
An agreement not to search out members on the border with Russia as I recall. Whether or not Russia would still be aggressive I don't know.
I'm not exactly an expert in Euro-Asian affairs.
Notwithstanding.... It's not hard to predict the consequences of a broken promise of that magnitude.

My problem with the whole thing is: why the hell should we be paying for it? Why are we involved at all?

Jo
It’s nonsense to claim Russia is as imperialistic as the US. They aren’t nearly as imperialistic.
 
It’s nonsense to claim Russia is as imperialistic as the US. They aren’t nearly as imperialistic.

I agree.... The point I'm trying to make is that we tend to condemn Russia for what we have been doing for over a century even more aggressively.
 
I agree.... The point I'm trying to make is that we tend to condemn Russia for what we have been doing for over a century even more aggressively.
Exactly. Yet dumb Americans like Toddstertraitor don’t know anything about imperialism by the US and his nation of Israel, but believes Russia, China, and Iran want to conquer the world. He’s nothing but a statist toady.
 
In nuclear and hypersonic technologies, for example.


In a large war? In 1945.

Just because you haven't seen US hypersonic tech doesn't mean your crappy tech is better.

You have to go back nearly 8 decades? LOL!
When the West helped you beat the "West"?
 
Well sure.... In most of the border states.
I think you are mistaking me for a fan of Russia.
Though I would posit that they are no more or less imperial than the United States is.

There seems to be a broken promise here.
An agreement not to search out members on the border with Russia as I recall. Whether or not Russia would still be aggressive I don't know.
I'm not exactly an expert in Euro-Asian affairs.
Notwithstanding.... It's not hard to predict the consequences of a broken promise of that magnitude.

My problem with the whole thing is: why the hell should we be paying for it? Why are we involved at all?

Jo

Well sure.... In most of the border states.

The west is funding opposition to Russia in the states that border Russia?

There seems to be a broken promise here.
An agreement not to search out members on the border with Russia as I recall.


What promise? What agreement?

My problem with the whole thing is: why the hell should we be paying for it?

We agree that NATO members need to fund a lot more of their own defense.
 
We enslaved Eastern Europe for over a century?

I don't think you get it.... This isn't about politics of Europe... This is about spending American tax payer money for foreign politics then finding more reasons why we should be involved in something that's pretty much none of our business.

Yeah yeah yeah I know If we don't stop them there pretty soon they'll cross the ocean and be knocking on our doorstep....That tired old line that keeps the war contractors in business and the banks that finance them rolling in dough.
 
Back
Top Bottom