In Our War Against Russia.

[PeterPilot]

Sorry, friend, but that's a bunch of nonsense. Any casual observer can tell you that NATO and the European nations aren’t the aggressors here. NATO is a defensive organization, not an alliance looking to attack anyone. The idea that NATO is some warmongering entity couldn't be further from the truth—if anything, they lean toward diplomacy and deterrence rather than outright aggression.

I understand that frustration with those who manipulate the Constitution and law for political purposes can push people toward opposing viewpoints, but siding with Putin isn't the solution. In the end, you'd only find yourself under Russian control, stripped of any real freedom.

You are thoroughly brainwashed sir, and you have alot of company.

 

[PeterPilot]

We are not at war with Russia. As a matter of fact we share technology with the Russians in the Space Station.

Putting economic sanctions against a country and stealing their property might easily be construed as economic warfare. Wake up and smell the napalm Whitehall. NATO and the US brought this action. The record is clear.

 

[PeterPilot]

Russia didn’t save Europe from Hitler. That is just another communist lie. Russia saved Russia from Hitler, then conquered as much of Europe as Truman and Churchill would let them. Russia HELPED Germany conquer Poland, then went on and attempted to conquer Finland. It Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, Stalin would have invaded Germany within a year or two. The Soviets regarded ALL the non-communist countries as active enemies to be destroyed as soon as possible, either by subversion from within, or by military action from outside. Stalin provided the WAllies almost nothing while constantly demanding more money, more food, more steel, more gasoline, more locomotives, more aircraft, more tanks and more trucks. You come up with anything and Stalin demanded a bunch of it for free,

Holy Cow, another well indoctrinated American!

 

[Orangecat]

Yes, we are basically at war with Russia. And with Trump on their side, they are kicking our ass.

if our Commander in Chief is on the side of Russia, we are not at war with them. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[PeterPilot]

You are so right, John Wayne and Hollywood have a lot to answer for.

Oliver Stone knows what's going on regarding vilification of Russia. His documentary The Untold History of The United States, I think in 10 parts, shows it, and so too Ukraine On Fire.

 

[Mushroom]

NATO took no action in Yugoslavia.

NATO was actually trying to enforce the UN mandated ceasefires and other UN ordered actions during that time.

I guess most people were not alive yet when that was going on, or were in some kind of coma. The UN ordered multiple ceasefires, abut especially Serbia simply ignored them and continued to attack their neighbors. And it is pretty much known that the UN is actually pretty worthless in actually doing things, so NATO stepped in to pick up the slack.

Is sad to think that between the 1980s and mid-1990s, the UN largely became a joke. At one time, the threat of inserting "UN Peace Keepers" had some real weight behind it and would often make belligerent powers back off. But by the 1990s, that became a joke. With the moment any UN forces came under fire, they would back off and run away just as fast as the San Angeles Police Department would in Demolition Man.

 

[Mushroom]

There were probably other forces at play when it came to the breakup of the communist Russian empire than oil. I have heard that much of it having to do with Russia not being able to keep up with our defense spending.

It was a great many things, a lot of it indirectly related to that. But also what that spending was spent on.

A lot of people to this day are still confused as to what "Star Wars" (SDI) actually was. They all seem to believe it was about "Space Lasers", but it never was. Never. Even from day 1, the main goal was to use kinetic kill vehicles to destroy inbound missiles.



But that is kind of hard to actually show in an animatic, so people would watch them and think they are talking about lasers. And even though they very clearly said "kinetic energy weapons" at 30 seconds into the above video, most people thought it was using lasers.

And in their desire to keep up, the Soviets sunk billions into high energy laser weapons. Which gave them a return of almost nothing. They had their own competing "SDI" program, that over 4 decades later has given them nothing in return for all of that investment.

Meanwhile, almost all of the US research went into things like the GPS system. And kinetic kill weapons that are the backbone for the modern PATRIOT system, THAAD, GBI, and the modern SM series of Naval missiles. Oh, the US still does research into Laser weapons, but notice it is almost a sideshow, nothing has ever gone operational.

Even more of the spending itself, it is what that spending was aimed at and resulted in. The US actually has gotten decades of advances both in the military and civilian sectors. GPS, modern satellite communications, XM radio and DirecTV, the advances in packet transmissions, all of that is based on the foundations of "Star Wars" research. The Soviets pretty much threw all of their money into a black hole that had no application for civilians.

That is a funny thing about the mindsets in the two countries. In the Soviet Union-Russia, they only thought of the end result weapon. Nothing else mattered, and any such research was so aimed at only that goal, they "could not see the forest through the trees".

Meanwhile, in the US such research was a joint Government-Corporate affair. And the corporate side was always looking at their advances and thinking "Gee, what can we do with this in order to sell it to everyday people?".

DirecTV and XM radio spun off of an early Hughes program to provide satellite communications on the battlefield. Their project was only unidirectional, but was key for an SDI era alert system. First to ground bases (DirecTV), then to mobile units (XM Radio). But in both of those, the ground locations could only receive and not transmit. They even worked out a work-around, allowing the remote locations to respond over POTS (phone system), so communication became bi-directional but response slower.

Hughes adapted that to civilian use, and that became "DirecPC".

But in the Soviet Union, absolutely no thought was ever given to improving the lives of the citizens above the absolute minimum. That is why almost their entire culture in the 1980s still looked like it had been frozen in time since the 1950s. As computer ownership in the US was approaching 50%, in the Soviet Union it was under 5%, with the majority still made by hobbyists with castoff parts like it had been in the US two decades earlier.

The most advanced "Dial-Up" service in the Soviet Union in 1991 was RELCOM, founded in 1990. And it had a whopping 20,000 users. Meanwhile, in the US CompuServe was founded in 1969. And in 1991 it had over 2 million users. AOL had over 3 million members in 1991.

Why? Because such things were simply not important in the Soviet Union. Nothing to the people, everything to the state.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

NATO was actually trying to enforce the UN mandated ceasefires and other UN ordered actions during that time.

I guess most people were not alive yet when that was going on, or were in some kind of coma. The UN ordered multiple ceasefires, abut especially Serbia simply ignored them and continued to attack their neighbors. And it is pretty much known that the UN is actually pretty worthless in actually doing things, so NATO stepped in to pick up the slack.

Is sad to think that between the 1980s and mid-1990s, the UN largely became a joke. At one time, the threat of inserting "UN Peace Keepers" had some real weight behind it and would often make belligerent powers back off. But by the 1990s, that became a joke. With the moment any UN forces came under fire, they would back off and run away just as fast as the San Angeles Police Department would in Demolition Man.

NATO is not the military arm of the UN.

 

[Donald H]

Yes, we are basically at war with Russia.

Yes and that's a good starting point.

And with Trump on their side, they are kicking our ass.

I wouldn't put it that way.
But from the beginning the other side has shown that they possess superior weapons. That poses a problem for US aircraft carriers and so far there's been no solution.

Recently, Russia managed to take out a good chunk of our top military leadership! This is through the actions of the Trump-Putin stooge that Trump appointed to be Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth.

I wouldn't try heaping any blame on Hegseth and company. The military has experts that make decisions. Even Trumps will be following instructions. Reality! ]/b]

He has ordered a 20% reduction in the number of four star generals and admirals across the military. As well as a 10% reduction in the total number of generals and flag officers. This includes a 20% cut in general officers in the National Guard. And for those stupid enough to require me to prove what I say, here it is.


AP News
apnews.com › article › hegseth-pentagon-cuts-dd2107dff617951b0edf6ca86074d836
Hegseth directs 20% cut to top military leadership positions | AP News

We can at least think that Triump could be tailoring the military to only meet its needs. That is, somewhat less aggression throughout the world and emphasis on defense.

I realize that's what Trump and his people want you to believe, but may not be true.

Let's go back to the beginning. The war is against Russia and America can't afford to lose the war to Russia. That eventually means that America is going to concede the driver's seat to the Brics alliance if Russia isn't defeated.

Trump appears to have got the message and isn't interfering in a serious way lately. We'll have to wait and see?

Are you an American? You seem to have figured it out!

 

[Donald H]

It was a great many things, a lot of it indirectly related to that. But also what that spending was spent on.

Forget Star Wars and all the bullshit. There's only one right answer.

Russia gave up the Soviet Union in good faith with America. If America kept the promise then there was no longer any need for a powerful Soviet Union. America didn't keep it's promise.

Now that's all history.

Russia has rebuilt on the need to be capable of defending against US aggression.

America lost it's opportunity when Russia was weak and there was no China/Brics threat. Now there is!

 

[Deadstick]

NATO was actually trying to enforce the UN mandated ceasefires and other UN ordered actions during that time.

I guess most people were not alive yet when that was going on, or were in some kind of coma. The UN ordered multiple ceasefires, abut especially Serbia simply ignored them and continued to attack their neighbors. And it is pretty much known that the UN is actually pretty worthless in actually doing things, so NATO stepped in to pick up the slack.

Is sad to think that between the 1980s and mid-1990s, the UN largely became a joke. At one time, the threat of inserting "UN Peace Keepers" had some real weight behind it and would often make belligerent powers back off. But by the 1990s, that became a joke. With the moment any UN forces came under fire, they would back off and run away just as fast as the San Angeles Police Department would in Demolition Man.

Who authorized Nato to attack Yugoslavia? it was illegal and against international law, the fact is the Empire chose that time because Russia was weak and a drunken clown Yeltsin was running Russia into the ground, if Putin had been in power at that time it would never have happened.

 

[Donald H]

Who authorized Nato to attack Yugoslavia? it was illegal and against international law, the fact is the Empire chose that time because Russia was weak and a drunken clown Yeltsin was running Russia into the ground, if Putin had been in power at that time it would never have happened.

That's exactly the reason for all the hate against Putin.

Don't worry, Putin's replacement when the time comes, will be guaranteed to not be any less resolute on Russia's existence as one of the superpowers that form the Brics alliance.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

US Aggression is "stay in Russia"?

 

[Stryder50]

Yes, we are basically at war with Russia. And with Trump on their side, they are kicking our ass. Recently, Russia managed to take out a good chunk of our top military leadership! This is through the actions of the Trump-Putin stooge that Trump appointed to be Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth. He has ordered a 20% reduction in the number of four star generals and admirals across the military. As well as a 10% reduction in the total number of generals and flag officers. This includes a 20% cut in general officers in the National Guard. And for those stupid enough to require me to prove what I say, here it is.


AP News
apnews.com › article › hegseth-pentagon-cuts-dd2107dff617951b0edf6ca86074d836
Hegseth directs 20% cut to top military leadership positions | AP News

It's not a matter of this;
"And for those stupid enough to require me to prove what I say, here it is."

Rather a case of you have no credentials to be taken as an expert or truthful.
For that matter most of us are similar, going by usernames here.

Also, there is an SOP, that claims presented as "fact" need to be documented and substantiated for validation and cross checking purposes. Otherwise for all any of us can know, the poster is just blowing smoke up arses

 

[Mushroom]

But from the beginning the other side has shown that they possess superior weapons. That poses a problem for US aircraft carriers and so far there's been no solution.

Actually, nobody has "shown" they "possess superior weapons". They only claim that they possess superior weapons.

That is a huge distinction, and one that can not be under-represented. The Russians claimed the exact same thing, how well has that worked out for them in Ukraine? All of those "superior weapons" has still resulted in the end to them barely holding onto a small strip of land, and actually seen them loose actual Russian territory.

I constantly laugh because so many people believe the hype given about various weapon systems. That in reality have largely been fizzles and not the "game changer" that many believed that they would be. Like now when it comes to "hypersonic". Just a buzz word that most people simply do not understand, so assign them magical properties that they are not capable of doing.

Hell, that was actually something the US researched over half a century ago. They researched it, and actually developed working systems that they started to introduce into service. Then backed off, because they ultimately realized they did not really make a lot of sense.

That is why for more than four decades, the state of the art in cruise missiles has been the Tomahawk. Not the Zircon or any others which have been shot down by PATRIOT just as easily as any other threats.

 

[Deadstick]

That's exactly the reason for all the hate against Putin.

Don't worry, Putin's replacement when the time comes, will be guaranteed to not be any less resolute on Russia's existence as one of the superpowers that form the Brics alliance.

What the hell are you barking about?

 

[Donald H]

What the hell are you barking about?

I don't mind you asking but you don't have to.

 

[Mushroom]

Russia gave up the Soviet Union in good faith with America. If America kept the promise then there was no longer any need for a powerful Soviet Union. America didn't keep it's promise.

Now that's all history.

Russia has rebuilt on the need to be capable of defending against US aggression.

Kept what promise?

Look, when you have freaking Finland and Sweden suddenly asking to join NATO, that has not a damned thing to do with the US. That is purely and 100% because of Russian aggression. Because just like Ukraine, both of those nations had clearly stated for decades that they wanted to be neutral and not take part in the politics between the Soviet Union - Russia and NATO - EU - Western Europe.

Then they saw Russia attack several neighboring countries over more than two decades, all of them were supposed to have been Russian allies no less! And they realized that like Ukraine, they could not rely upon Russian promises in protecting themselves as neutral nations.

Tell me, how many nations have joined the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) since it was founded? Here is the funny thing, none have joined. In fact, of the original founding members who signed the original charter, Ukraine decided to remain neutral and did not formally join. And after being attacked by Russia and seeing land annexed away by Russia Georgia left the CIS.

And after the Warsaw Pact, they created the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Of the 9 original members of that organization, they have added no others that remained. Founding members Azerbaijan, Georgia and Uzbekistan all left after the Russian-Georgian War. Uzbekistan did rejoin, but left again a few years later after they spoke up against the annexation of Crimea.

So tell me, why are the organizations that Russia created to replace the old Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact losing members? The nations that left have all been quite clear, they left because of Russian attacks and annexation of their territory, and aggression against other nations. And most of the time these attacks were against their own allies!

So explain this "American Aggression" please, because I can not remember the US attacking any Russian ally. I can not remember any member of NATO attacking a member of the CIS or CSTO. But Russia sure as hell has no problem with attacking the members of their own organizations.

As I asked already, exactly how much land have all of the NATO nations combined annexed away from other nations to add to their own? And how much land has Russia alone annexed away from other nations to add to their own.

Case closed, the prosecution rests.

 

[Stryder50]

Add to the above Russian history of aggression prior to 1917.

 

[Stryder50]

if our Commander in Chief is on the side of Russia, we are not at war with them. You can’t have it both ways.

As we heard about 9+ years ago regard "Russian Collusion" to get Trump elected.