Baron
Platinum Member
The only truth is Russia will never accept NATO at its borders.
As finale coming nuclear WWIII with annihilation of humanity.
The f..... NATO should be dissolved already thirty years ago after the death of Warsaw Pact, but it exists ( unfortunately ) and stir up countries to justify its merely existence.
Good Europa begins to rethink the role of NATO in Ukrainian conflict.
COULD A TRIPARTITE WESTERN ALLIANCE SECURE PEACE?
In the meantime, even flagships of the Swiss press landscape such as the "Neue Zürcher Zeitung" (NZZ) are practicing degrading politicians or publicists as "Putin-understanders", not even shying away from misinformation in order to earn laurels with their partisanship for the aggressive policy of the USA. And it is bearing fruit: "Germany is doing what it is supposed to do," US diplomat Thatcher Scharpf praised Berlin's policy - we are finally back on US course! In a NZZ guest commentary under the title "Die faulen Tricks der Putin-Versteher und Möchtegernpazifisten" (The lazy tricks of the Putin-understanders and would-be pacifists), the view I hold that there is nothing to be rearmed on the part of NATO against Russia is also called into doubt; not even by the European NATO countries by arming Ukraine against Russia. Here is a passage from the article that I will address subsequently.
"To justify Putin's ideology and explain Russia's alleged feelings of threat, Putin-understanders like to point to NATO's arms costs. NATO countries have military budgets of $1100 billion, while modest, peaceful Russia supposedly gets by on almost one-twentieth of that amount of money, a mere $61 billion. This is a classic in the argumentation repertoire of pacifist masturbation, easy to understand and simply beautiful. Every day, this comparison is brought up in political talk shows and Bundestag debates, constantly repeated in social networks. This was also the case in the last pacifist appeal with the slogan 'No to war - together we stop the armament madness! This time signed not only by 60, but by more than 600 celebrities. They argue that 'defense spending' by all thirty NATO states already exceeds Russian spending by a factor of almost twenty. Defense spending in quotes, signaling that it could also be attack spending." (Here is the link to the cited appeal)
Comparing not budgets, but real military power
The dollar superiority of NATO's arms budgets is no yardstick, the NZZ guest author argues, citing three reasons: NATO's defense industry workers and soldiers earn more, Putin can command which orders are to be executed at what price, and Russia does not publicly declare all of its many military budgets. From this he schoolmasters renowned institutes like SIPRI and downgrades them to the level of elementary school students who cannot yet do math properly. Because apparently only this senior teacher of the NZZ is able to calculate, in the following I will not compare monetary values, but soldiers and weapon systems:
In particular, the European NATO countries have a clear "overkill" potential against Russia. We Europeans have six times as many weapons systems as the USA. There is nothing to rearm here, in my view. So is NATO now disarming by having its member countries give weapons to Ukraine, which is not even a member of NATO yet? You can look at it that way, too. But no: By handing over weapons to the Eastern Europeans, they are moving ever closer to Putin's Russia. Ukraine does not need more soldiers; with 200,000 soldiers, the army is larger than the German army, even without the civilians now enlisted. But of all things, our Bundeswehr is now to become the "most powerful army in Europe"! But it is already not as bad as always claimed, see here (200 pages about the Bundeswehr - but paper is patient).
Clear NATO Overkill Potential
The European NATO countries in particular have a clear "overkill" potential vis-à-vis Russia. We Europeans have six times as many weapons systems as the USA. There is nothing to rearm here, in my view. So is NATO now disarming by having its member countries give weapons to Ukraine, which is not even a member of NATO yet? You can look at it that way, too. But no: By handing over weapons to the Eastern Europeans, they are moving ever closer to Putin's Russia. Ukraine does not need more soldiers; with 200,000 soldiers, the army is larger than the German army, even without the civilians now enlisted. But of all things, our Bundeswehr is now to become the "most powerful army in Europe"! But it is already not as bad as always claimed, see here (200 pages about the Bundeswehr - but paper is patient).
Because of the 20-year NATO accession offensive, Russia also rearmed in the last ten years; but it could not keep up with the expansion of NATO to now 30 member countries - which is shown, among other things, by the fact that Russia has already had to retreat in Ukraine with its conventional weapons, although the Ukrainian army is numerically inferior. This also makes clear that the "heavy weapons" praised as decisive for the war do not matter at all. Many Russian tanks were destroyed with simple bazookas - which would not be any better with their own battle tanks. Nor will it be possible to prevent Russian missile fire with the now promised "predators" (Cheetah, Leopard, Marder, Fox).
God have mercy on us
It may sound cynical, but it is a fact: further arms deliveries will only prolong the suffering of the Ukrainian people. And further NATO accessions carry the risk that Russia, whether subjectively or objectively, whether justified or not, will feel even more harassed and encircled - and Putin will end up using, out of "desperation" or terminal mood, that one arsenal of weapons where Russia is not outgunned: nuclear weapons. Then God have mercy on us. Already we have a European war - even if not yet a world war. But this too could hit our own country very quickly - and not just in the form of the wave of refugees crossing Poland into Germany. If Putin goes completely nuts and attacks those German party headquarters that agreed to the additional arms export, surviving Germans will have to consider where to flee to themselves.
Wouldn't it be better for de-escalation to divide "NATO" into three blocs? The first would be a bloc of USA/Canada; the second a European North Atlantic alliance with its member countries until 1982 (including all of Germany). And the third part would be those countries which also geographically have absolutely nothing to do with the "North Atlantic": The 14 accession countries since 1999 (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia; Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, Northern Macedonia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria). Ukraine could then also join this latter alliance. But a membership of the current war country in the massively US-dominated current alliance obviously distances us from the peace in Europe that we want and need in the long run.
Translation from source:
ansage.org
As finale coming nuclear WWIII with annihilation of humanity.
The f..... NATO should be dissolved already thirty years ago after the death of Warsaw Pact, but it exists ( unfortunately ) and stir up countries to justify its merely existence.
Good Europa begins to rethink the role of NATO in Ukrainian conflict.
COULD A TRIPARTITE WESTERN ALLIANCE SECURE PEACE?
In the meantime, even flagships of the Swiss press landscape such as the "Neue Zürcher Zeitung" (NZZ) are practicing degrading politicians or publicists as "Putin-understanders", not even shying away from misinformation in order to earn laurels with their partisanship for the aggressive policy of the USA. And it is bearing fruit: "Germany is doing what it is supposed to do," US diplomat Thatcher Scharpf praised Berlin's policy - we are finally back on US course! In a NZZ guest commentary under the title "Die faulen Tricks der Putin-Versteher und Möchtegernpazifisten" (The lazy tricks of the Putin-understanders and would-be pacifists), the view I hold that there is nothing to be rearmed on the part of NATO against Russia is also called into doubt; not even by the European NATO countries by arming Ukraine against Russia. Here is a passage from the article that I will address subsequently.
"To justify Putin's ideology and explain Russia's alleged feelings of threat, Putin-understanders like to point to NATO's arms costs. NATO countries have military budgets of $1100 billion, while modest, peaceful Russia supposedly gets by on almost one-twentieth of that amount of money, a mere $61 billion. This is a classic in the argumentation repertoire of pacifist masturbation, easy to understand and simply beautiful. Every day, this comparison is brought up in political talk shows and Bundestag debates, constantly repeated in social networks. This was also the case in the last pacifist appeal with the slogan 'No to war - together we stop the armament madness! This time signed not only by 60, but by more than 600 celebrities. They argue that 'defense spending' by all thirty NATO states already exceeds Russian spending by a factor of almost twenty. Defense spending in quotes, signaling that it could also be attack spending." (Here is the link to the cited appeal)
Comparing not budgets, but real military power
The dollar superiority of NATO's arms budgets is no yardstick, the NZZ guest author argues, citing three reasons: NATO's defense industry workers and soldiers earn more, Putin can command which orders are to be executed at what price, and Russia does not publicly declare all of its many military budgets. From this he schoolmasters renowned institutes like SIPRI and downgrades them to the level of elementary school students who cannot yet do math properly. Because apparently only this senior teacher of the NZZ is able to calculate, in the following I will not compare monetary values, but soldiers and weapon systems:
- Military personnel (soldiers, reserve, paramilitary): NATO 5.405.000 men, Russia 1.350.000 = superiority 4:1
- Total air force (aircraft of all types and reconnaissance aircraft): NATO 20,723 units, Russia 4,173 units = superiority 5:1
- Helicopters: NATO 8,485 units, Russia 1,543 units = superiority 5.5:1
- Main battle tanks: NATO 14,682 units, Russia 12,420 units = superiority 1.2:1
- Armored vehicles: NATO 115,000 units, Russia 30,122 units = superiority 3.8:1
- Military ships: NATO 2,049 units, Russia 605 units (now one less since sinking of "Moskva") = superiority 3.4:1
- Nuclear warheads: NATO 6,065 units, Russia 6,255 units = "inferiority" 0.97:1
In particular, the European NATO countries have a clear "overkill" potential against Russia. We Europeans have six times as many weapons systems as the USA. There is nothing to rearm here, in my view. So is NATO now disarming by having its member countries give weapons to Ukraine, which is not even a member of NATO yet? You can look at it that way, too. But no: By handing over weapons to the Eastern Europeans, they are moving ever closer to Putin's Russia. Ukraine does not need more soldiers; with 200,000 soldiers, the army is larger than the German army, even without the civilians now enlisted. But of all things, our Bundeswehr is now to become the "most powerful army in Europe"! But it is already not as bad as always claimed, see here (200 pages about the Bundeswehr - but paper is patient).
Clear NATO Overkill Potential
The European NATO countries in particular have a clear "overkill" potential vis-à-vis Russia. We Europeans have six times as many weapons systems as the USA. There is nothing to rearm here, in my view. So is NATO now disarming by having its member countries give weapons to Ukraine, which is not even a member of NATO yet? You can look at it that way, too. But no: By handing over weapons to the Eastern Europeans, they are moving ever closer to Putin's Russia. Ukraine does not need more soldiers; with 200,000 soldiers, the army is larger than the German army, even without the civilians now enlisted. But of all things, our Bundeswehr is now to become the "most powerful army in Europe"! But it is already not as bad as always claimed, see here (200 pages about the Bundeswehr - but paper is patient).
Because of the 20-year NATO accession offensive, Russia also rearmed in the last ten years; but it could not keep up with the expansion of NATO to now 30 member countries - which is shown, among other things, by the fact that Russia has already had to retreat in Ukraine with its conventional weapons, although the Ukrainian army is numerically inferior. This also makes clear that the "heavy weapons" praised as decisive for the war do not matter at all. Many Russian tanks were destroyed with simple bazookas - which would not be any better with their own battle tanks. Nor will it be possible to prevent Russian missile fire with the now promised "predators" (Cheetah, Leopard, Marder, Fox).
God have mercy on us
It may sound cynical, but it is a fact: further arms deliveries will only prolong the suffering of the Ukrainian people. And further NATO accessions carry the risk that Russia, whether subjectively or objectively, whether justified or not, will feel even more harassed and encircled - and Putin will end up using, out of "desperation" or terminal mood, that one arsenal of weapons where Russia is not outgunned: nuclear weapons. Then God have mercy on us. Already we have a European war - even if not yet a world war. But this too could hit our own country very quickly - and not just in the form of the wave of refugees crossing Poland into Germany. If Putin goes completely nuts and attacks those German party headquarters that agreed to the additional arms export, surviving Germans will have to consider where to flee to themselves.
Wouldn't it be better for de-escalation to divide "NATO" into three blocs? The first would be a bloc of USA/Canada; the second a European North Atlantic alliance with its member countries until 1982 (including all of Germany). And the third part would be those countries which also geographically have absolutely nothing to do with the "North Atlantic": The 14 accession countries since 1999 (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia; Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, Northern Macedonia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria). Ukraine could then also join this latter alliance. But a membership of the current war country in the massively US-dominated current alliance obviously distances us from the peace in Europe that we want and need in the long run.
Translation from source:
Könnte eine Dreiteilung des westlichen Bündnisses den Frieden sichern? - Ansage
Inzwischen üben sich auch Flaggschiffe der schweizerischen Presselandschaft wie die "Neue Zürcher Zeitung” (NZZ) darin, Politiker oder Publizisten als "Putin-Versteher” zu degradieren und schrecken dabei auch nicht vor Falschinformationen zurück, um sich mit ihrer Parteinahme für die aggressive...
ansage.org
