Should Western Ukraine become a NATO protectorate?

Yeah that’s it. You are a black-and-white kind of doofus child.

I'll take your inability to post any intelligent argument as an admission that you've lost this debate.

Now you can go kiss Putin's ass.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: xyz
I'll take your inability to post any intelligent argument as an admission that you've lost this debate.

Now you can go kiss Putin's ass.
Here is a great video with the great Chris Hedges that will blow up your naive thinking. I mean it really will! So, you need to man up before watching it. Your entire worldview is utterly destroyed.
 
The head of the sovereign fund of Norway: "The greed of the American corporate sector is off the scale"

But it continues to regularly pour Norwegian oil revenues into this very corporate sector. Otherwise , snip - and there will be no Norway
 
Turkish President Erdogan: "Sweden should not expect favors from Turkey on NATO membership after recent actions by supporters of PKK terrorism and enemies of Muslims"
 
The polacks have their own notions
813D16FC-AE97-4CC2-A8FC-C68F9144F953.jpeg
 
Why was neither the USSR nor Russia accepted into NATO?
Then there would simply be no point in this organization, and the NATO leadership and officials clearly did not want to give up such a fat fodder.
 
Why was neither the USSR nor Russia accepted into NATO?
Then there would simply be no point in this organization, and the NATO leadership and officials clearly did not want to give up such a fat fodder.
Russia was a NATO partner though. They did common exercises.

I was looking at materials from around the time of the end of the Soviet Union. There was a lot of cooperation between the US and USSR then, not only military.

.Putin made the West into an enemy.
 
Not the advance of NATO to Russia's borders and the deployment of missiles "against Iran" in Eastern Europe, on the border with Russia?
NATO did not advance to Russia's borders, Russia's neighbors fled from Russia after living with the Russian boot on their throats for 45 years. How can Russia complain about its neighbors having missiles on Russia's border when Russia has missiles on their borders?
 
Originally posted by toomuchtime
NATO did not advance to Russia's borders, Russia's neighbors fled from Russia after living with the Russian boot on their throats for 45 years.

NATO is a military alliance not a charity.

Eastern european countries were accepted only because they served the West's plan to increase their geopolitical weight and surround Russia:

Internal NATO reaction to these former Warsaw Pact countries was initially negative, but by the 1991 Rome summit in November, members agreed to a series of goals that could lead to accession, such as market and democratic liberalization, and that NATO should be a partner in these efforts. Debate within the American government as to whether enlargement of NATO was feasible or desirable began during the George H.W. Bush administration. By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen Euro-American hegemony. In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.

Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia

Originally posted by toomuchtime
How can Russia complain about its neighbors having missiles on Russia's border when Russia has missiles on their borders?

Because Russia dismantled the Cold War security structure of the Soviet Union in good faith only to get vindictiveness, Cold War revanchism, NATO expansion in return.

This guy invaded Grenada, supported coups, financed invasions and bloody proxy wars throughout Central America so that America's neighbors didn't have soviet weapons, missiles on her borders despite her huge nuclear arsenal:

reagan_flags.jpg
 
Get this simple fact through your thick skull once and for all:

No tribe, city-state, kingdom, country in human history likes to have its borders surrounded by foreign military alliances.

The only difference is the fact that some countries can't do anything about it but whine (Togo, Cambodia, Bolivia, etc...) while others can (Russia, China, America, etc...).
 
Get this simple fact through your thick skull once and for all:

No tribe, city-state, kingdom, country in human history likes to have its borders surrounded by foreign military alliances.

The only difference is the fact that some countries can't do anything about it but whine (Togo, Cambodia, Bolivia, etc...) while others can (Russia, China, America, etc...).
And how is that working out for Russia with the latest reports showing Russia has suffered 120,000 dead soldiers in Ukraine so far and nearly 200,000 dead or wounded, and Russians talking about modeling themselves after North Korea in order to survive the sanctions?
 
NATO is a military alliance not a charity.

Eastern european countries were accepted only because they served the West's plan to increase their geopolitical weight and surround Russia:

Internal NATO reaction to these former Warsaw Pact countries was initially negative, but by the 1991 Rome summit in November, members agreed to a series of goals that could lead to accession, such as market and democratic liberalization, and that NATO should be a partner in these efforts. Debate within the American government as to whether enlargement of NATO was feasible or desirable began during the George H.W. Bush administration. By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen Euro-American hegemony. In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.

Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia



Because Russia dismantled the Cold War security structure of the Soviet Union in good faith only to get vindictiveness, Cold War revanchism, NATO expansion in return.

This guy invaded Grenada, supported coups, financed invasions and bloody proxy wars throughout Central America so that America's neighbors didn't have soviet weapons, missiles on her borders despite her huge nuclear arsenal:

reagan_flags.jpg
Of course not a word of that is true, but you did faithfully present one of Putin's pretexts for his imperialistic invasion of Ukraine.
 
If Stalin had struck first in 1941, knowing full well that there would be war, and had moved the hostilities completely into enemy territory, saving millions of soviet lives, he would have been considered a criminal in a Europe that he had liberated.
And they still think so, though.
 
Ukraine will never be accepted into NATO or the EU. This makes no sense to anyone, since why be financially and militarily responsible for a country that is already sending its people to their deaths in the interests of these organizations.
 

Forum List

Back
Top