Russian draft documents on legal security guarantees from the United States and NATO

They have been, and the Azov battalion has been massacring whole villages for it.
So then Russia is required to intervene, just like the US should have in Rwanda.
But Russia also has other reasons to punish criminal behavior by Kyiv, such as stealing oil, violating treaties, trying to join NATO, etc.
I dont think putin is acting to right a wrong

Bur instead to remake the old soviet union
 
You asked, “did Russia EVER do that was harmful to anyone?’ The USSR was a resu.t of the Russian Revolution. I would say killing 20,000,000 people could be considered harmful to the citizens of his nation.

Stalin was definitely not a capitalist, He was a communist although some will argue he was a Stalinist.



Stalinism is the means of governing and Marxist-Leninist policies implemented in the Soviet Unionfrom 1927 to 1953 by Joseph Stalin. It included the creation of a one-party totalitarian police state, rapid industrialization, the theory of socialism in one country, collectivization of agriculture, intensification of class conflict, a cult of personality,[1][2] and subordination of the interests of foreign communist parties to those of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, deemed by Stalinism to be the leading vanguard party of communist revolution at the time.[3]

Stalin's regime forcibly purged society of what it saw as threats to itself and its brand of communism (so-called "enemies of the people"), which included political dissidents, non-Soviet nationalists, the bourgeoisie, better-off peasants ("kulaks"),[4] and those of the working class who demonstrated "counter-revolutionary" sympathies.[5] This resulted in mass repression of such people as well as their families, including mass arrests, show trials, executions, and imprisonment in forced labor and concentration camps known as gulags.[6] The most notable examples of this were the Great Purge and the Dekulakization campaign. Stalinism was also marked by mass religious persecution,[7][8] and ethnic cleansing through forced deportations.[9] Some historians such as Robert Service have blamed Stalinist policies, particularly the collectivization policies, for causing famines such as the Holodomor.[7]Other historians and scholars disagree on the role of Stalinism.[10]

Totally wrong.
First of all, Russia is not the USSR, and the USSR is not Stalin.
Second is that Marxism or communism requires egalitarianism.
There can be no wealthy elite.
If there is a wealthy elite, that is capitalism.
And Stalinism, the USSR, and Russia all had or have a wealthy elite.
Communism has to be communal, cooperative, and collective, which requires a democratic republic.

And you are not going to find anything accurate about Russia, USSR, or Stalin.
All the sources available are total propaganda.
The reality is that the White Russian rebellion is what killed 20 million people.
The Kulaks deliberately burned the crops.
They were well armed, and there was about a decade of outright war.
The Holodomor was a decade later. and caused mostly by an unusual drought.
 
Have you always been a commie fellator?
Were you ever sane?

The only good people of the world are always communist, like the primitive, collective, hunter/gatherer tribes, religious communes, etc.
Funny to see so many in the US military being so anti-communist, when the way people live in the military is totally and completely communist.
 
Pfft.

NATO doesn't have any nukes. Never did. NATO forces are made up from member States.

Even NATO calls them "NATO" nuclear forces, but the parts and pieces were never really NATO's. Semantics.

You are still wrong about Poland, and equally wrong about Ukraine and Sweden and Latvia. There is no reason to even do that.

The entire argument is specious. No country has a "launch on launch" nuclear posture. Not even Russia. It's always been "launch on impact".

Russia and the US can annihilate each other no matter who started it, and it doesn't really matter if the missiles are launched from under the icecap, or from a bomber or a silo. There is enough to get the job done regardless.

Sure, and you want to claim all those NATO nukes in Spain, England, and France were made by Spain, England, and France?
No, they are mostly made by the US.

And I am not wrong about Poland.
The US was in the process of installing nukes in Poland.
They might still have nukes there most likely?

And you are totally wrong about our nuclear strategy.
It is always launch on launch, because after impact, launch likely becomes impossible.
There is no way to prevent a first strike from wiping out any retaliatory response, any other way.
Silos under piles of debris can not launch, and if a direct hit, the silo would be toast.
And no, a nuclear war would not annihilate anyone.
Over half the population would likely survive.
What would be destroyed is our comfortable, high tech, life style.
The Russians would hardly notice.
 
I dont think putin is acting to right a wrong

Bur instead to remake the old soviet union

That is silly.
The USSR was ended because it cost a fortune.
There is nothing gained for Russia to have more people or turf.
They already have more than they need or want.
The last thing Russia would want is more pesky Afghan Moslems or troublesome Cossacks from the Ukraine.
Russia would prefer total isolation and only gets involved globally when they remember how badly WWII went, due to their isolated status.
 
More than justified, but absolutely essential to invade the Ukraine, in order to stop the fascist murders, oil theft, treaty violations, and attempts to put NATO nukes on Russia's border.

Commies whining about fascists....is anything funnier?
 
That is silly.
The USSR was ended because it cost a fortune.
There is nothing gained for Russia to have more people or turf.
They already have more than they need or want.
The last thing Russia would want is more pesky Afghan Moslems or troublesome Cossacks from the Ukraine.
Russia would prefer total isolation and only gets involved globally when they remember how badly WWII went, due to their isolated status.

The USSR was ended because it cost a fortune.

And commies are really bad at making fortunes.

There is nothing gained for Russia to have more people or turf.

Tell that to Putin, he keeps grabbing more people and turf.
 
Commies whining about fascists....is anything funnier?

Fascists are defined by the ancient Romans, as a coalition of the wealthy elite, the military, aristocracy, and the priesthood has been replaced by the bankers.
It is an autocracy of the wealthy elite.

Communism is the exact opposite, which has to be a democratic republic that is totally egalitarian.
 
That is silly.
The USSR was ended because it cost a fortune.
There is nothing gained for Russia to have more people or turf.
They already have more than they need or want.
The last thing Russia would want is more pesky Afghan Moslems or troublesome Cossacks from the Ukraine.
Russia would prefer total isolation and only gets involved globally when they remember how badly WWII went, due to their isolated status.
If russia wins the war ukraine will be a puppet state with no will of its own
 
And you are totally wrong about our nuclear strategy.
It is always launch on launch, because after impact, launch likely becomes impossible.
No. Before ICBM's maybe. Not since.

Bombers can be recalled, missiles can't.

Clinton issued new policy in 1997- the existing policy at the time was from 1981. The policy relating to launch on warning didn't change -we don't do it now and we didn't do it then. It would make everything dependent on the earely warning system -that's too much risk.

Launch on Warning​

<snip>

Bell said the press had incorrectly indicated that the PDD "still allows" the United States to launch nuclear weapons upon receiving warning of an attack. Bell emphasized that "there is no change in this PDD with respect to U.S. policy on launch on warning and that policy is that we do not, not rely on it." In fact, Bell said "in this PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning—to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence."

Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had the "technical capability" to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. "Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating," he said.

 
Last edited:
The USSR was ended because it cost a fortune.

And commies are really bad at making fortunes.

There is nothing gained for Russia to have more people or turf.

Tell that to Putin, he keeps grabbing more people and turf.

Wrong.
What Putin wants is to stop the US from corrupting more governments with bribes.
Never has Russia "grabbed" anything, anywhere.
The Tatars of the Crimea did not like how they were being abuses by Kyiv.
That is their choice, and Kyiv gets no say.
Same with the other ethnic Russia populations Kyiv obviously is abusing.
If not for the awful way Kyiv is treating ethnic Russians, there would have been no conflict from them.
But the Ukraine would still have to be invaded for stealing oil and violating treaties by trying to join NATO.
 
If russia wins the war ukraine will be a puppet state with no will of its own

I hope the Ukraine is just destroyed and depopulated.
That is the source of the monsters who want the death camps for Hitler.
Only by spreading them out among normal people can that evil threat be eliminated.
 
Wrong.
What Putin wants is to stop the US from corrupting more governments with bribes.
Never has Russia "grabbed" anything, anywhere.
The Tatars of the Crimea did not like how they were being abuses by Kyiv.
That is their choice, and Kyiv gets no say.
Same with the other ethnic Russia populations Kyiv obviously is abusing.
If not for the awful way Kyiv is treating ethnic Russians, there would have been no conflict from them.
But the Ukraine would still have to be invaded for stealing oil and violating treaties by trying to join NATO.
Never has Russia "grabbed" anything, anywhere.

They didn't grab Eastern Europe?

But the Ukraine would still have to be invaded for stealing oil and violating treaties by trying to join NATO.

Which part of that imaginary treaty allows Russia to invade?
 
No. Before ICBM's maybe. Not since.

Bombers can be recalled, missiles can't.

Launch on Warning​

<snip>

Bell said the press had incorrectly indicated that the PDD "still allows" the United States to launch nuclear weapons upon receiving warning of an attack. Bell emphasized that "there is no change in this PDD with respect to U.S. policy on launch on warning and that policy is that we do not, not rely on it." In fact, Bell said "in this PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning—to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence."


Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had the "technical capability" to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. "Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating," he said.


Wrong.

Read further down and it admits we will launch without being there first being a single nuclear impact.

{...
In this context, Bell explained that it is U.S. policy not to use nuclear weapons first against any state except in three cases. First, "if a state that we are engaged in conflict with is a nuclear-capable state, we do not necessarily intend to wait until that state uses nuclear weapons first—we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict whether its CW [chemical weapons], BW [biological weapons] or for that matter conventional [weapons]," he said. Under the second scenario, Bell said the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first "if a state is not a state in good standing under the Non-Proliferation Treaty or an equivalent international convention." Finally, he said if a state attacks the United States, its allies or its forces "in alliance" with a nuclear-capable state, then the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first, even if that state is not a nuclear-capable state and is in good standing under the NPT. Because these three exceptions have existed for some time, Bell said "there is no policy change whatsoever in this PDD with respect to fundamental U.S. position on no first use of nuclear weapons."
...}

That clearly is admitting the US is not just willing to launch upon detection of incoming, but without any nuclear attack against us at all.

Anyone claiming the US would wait for nuclear impacts before launch, has to be a little crazy.
No country, president, politician, or military member would ever recommend to do that.
Retaliatory strength would likely be reduced by at least 90% if you waited until after impact.
 
Never has Russia "grabbed" anything, anywhere.

They didn't grab Eastern Europe?

But the Ukraine would still have to be invaded for stealing oil and violating treaties by trying to join NATO.

Which part of that imaginary treaty allows Russia to invade?

The POINT of Russia occupying eastern Europe originally was simply to defeat the Germans.
They stayed for a while in order to rebuild, but also to ensure Russia would always have a neutral buffer, and not have enemies right on their border.
Russia never "grabbed" eastern Europe the way the US tried to grab China, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Chile, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, etc., in order to steal their resources and wealth.
 
Wrong.

Read further down and it admits we will launch without being there first being a single nuclear impact.

{...
In this context, Bell explained that it is U.S. policy not to use nuclear weapons first against any state except in three cases. First, "if a state that we are engaged in conflict with is a nuclear-capable state, we do not necessarily intend to wait until that state uses nuclear weapons first—we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict whether its CW [chemical weapons], BW [biological weapons] or for that matter conventional [weapons]," he said. Under the second scenario, Bell said the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first "if a state is not a state in good standing under the Non-Proliferation Treaty or an equivalent international convention." Finally, he said if a state attacks the United States, its allies or its forces "in alliance" with a nuclear-capable state, then the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first, even if that state is not a nuclear-capable state and is in good standing under the NPT. Because these three exceptions have existed for some time, Bell said "there is no policy change whatsoever in this PDD with respect to fundamental U.S. position on no first use of nuclear weapons."
...}

That clearly is admitting the US is not just willing to launch upon detection of incoming, but without any nuclear attack against us at all.

Anyone claiming the US would wait for nuclear impacts before launch, has to be a little crazy.
No country, president, politician, or military member would ever recommend to do that.
Retaliatory strength would likely be reduced by at least 90% if you waited until after impact.
That is the first use policy, not launch on warning.

We have always held "strategic ambiguity" on NFU.

So if circumstances dictated a nuclear response, we would not have to wait until we were nuked. If an enemy makes a WMD attack with chem or bio weapons (or some other unspecified criteria), we may respond with a nuke.

In that circumstance, there is no launch or impact to trigger the response- you can't argue that it's a launch on warning policy.

In the context of this thread- a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia, we have never had a launch on warning policy.

Launch on warning would make survival of the nation subject to a single point of failure. We don't do that.

I know this is true- I know people who were in that line of business during the cold war.
 
Last edited:
Totally wrong.
First of all, Russia is not the USSR, and the USSR is not Stalin.
Second is that Marxism or communism requires egalitarianism.
There can be no wealthy elite.
If there is a wealthy elite, that is capitalism.
And Stalinism, the USSR, and Russia all had or have a wealthy elite.
Communism has to be communal, cooperative, and collective, which requires a democratic republic.

And you are not going to find anything accurate about Russia, USSR, or Stalin.
All the sources available are total propaganda.
The reality is that the White Russian rebellion is what killed 20 million people.
The Kulaks deliberately burned the crops.
They were well armed, and there was about a decade of outright war.
The Holodomor was a decade later. and caused mostly by an unusual drought.
You may love to talk theoretical Communism but I am talking real life Communism.




 
That is the first use policy, not launch on warning.

We have always held "strategic ambiguity" on NFU.

So if circumstances dictated a nuclear response, we would not have to wait until we were nuked. If an enemy makes a WMD attack with chem or bio weapons (or some other unspecified criteria), we may respond with a nuke.

In that circumstance, there is no launch or impact to trigger the response- you can't argue that it's a launch on warning policy.

In the context of this thread- a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia, we have never had a launch on warning policy.

Launch on warning would make survival of the nation subject to a single point of failure. We don't do that.

I know this is true- I know people who were in that line of business during the cold war.

Doesn't matter. It did not require a chem or bio weapons attack.
It simply we will nuke first is we want to, at any time.
And anyone claiming we would not launch until after impact, is just lying.
If anyone waits until after a first strike is completed, then the retaliation force would be reduced by as much as 90%.
No one would ever do that.
In fact, the only reason for putting nukes that close to Russia, has to be a deliberate first strike intent.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top