Jump to content

Kiev Is Burning


X-Files
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 22.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stuart Galbraith

    1653

  • Gregory

    989

  • Roman Alymov

    6379

  • glenn239

    1298

2 minutes ago, Perun said:

Kaliningard is Russian soil while US nuclear stockpiles in europena NATO countries is not on US soil

Kaliningrad is in Europe, Russia is actually pointing those missiles at Europe, and claiming its  reciprocal to non existent US nuclear weapons and rockets the US is apparently going to place in Ukraine. Someday. Maybe.

Russia wants to place as many weapons forward as it can, without any reciprocity. This was not acceptable in the days of SS20, it's not acceptable now.

I honestly wish the American Government would put nuclear weapons in Ukraine, it would be fully reciprocal to what Putin has been doing for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So what you are saying is, let's conflate wholly dissimilar things and pretend they are the same thing? oh ok then. :)

 

No, I am saying that you don't trust military spokesmen, any one of them, they are marketing department, and I pity anyone buying into what any marketing departments says. Don't spam every troop movement, no matter how far away from Ukraine. Don't get distracted by the  trivial things like tanks in Khabarovsk (notice that I did not comment on other ones). Don't overuse twatter, and learn to filter information. Maybe then you will not be treated as a "boy who cried wolf".

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Russia is in europe, in fact 40% of europe is Russia and 15% of european population is Russian. 

Who knows were russian missile is pointed.

As I remember US first backed from ABM treaty, then from INF treaty then from open sky treaty and maintain stockpile of +150 nuclear bombs in europe + British and French nuclear arsenal. And Estonia intends to arm itself with rockets reaching St. Petersburg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bojan said:

No, I am saying that you don't trust military spokesmen, any one of them, they are marketing. Don't spam every troop movement, no matter how far away from Ukraine. Don't get distracted by the  trivial things like tanks in Khabarovsk (notice that I did not comment on other ones). Don't overuse twatter, and learn to filter information. Maybe then you will not be treated as a "boy who cried wolf".

Just following the same people that have seemingly proven accurate in the past. They claim there is some evidence trains are coming from the east, I retweeted it because it seems convincing. When I subsequently find falsehoods, I post those up too. All very straightforward.

So we have the US intelligence service saying it, Russians all along the Transiberian showing it on tiktok, the Russian Military admitting themselves they are doing military exercises all over Eastern ND and you won't believe it till T80BVMs with Vladivostok or Bust bumper stickers turn up in Voronezh. Ok then. 

Personally I don't really give a damn what you, or anyone else think of me. I'm either right or I'm not, and your personal opinion will make no difference to that end either way. I can fully admit I might be wrong. You can never concede I might actually be right. In that sense we haven't moved on since 2014.

Southern Military district, according to Russian sources, also quoted in twitter, are claiming a limited mobilization. I probably imagined that also.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Perun said:

Well Russia is in europe, in fact 40% of europe is Russia and 15% of european population is Russian. 

Who knows were russian missile is pointed.

As I remember US first backed from ABM treaty, then from INF treaty then from open sky treaty and maintain stockpile of +150 nuclear bombs in europe + British and French nuclear arsenal. And Estonia intends to arm itself with rockets reaching St. Petersburg

so? the effect on target of couple Blue Spears with it´s 150-250kg warheads equal basicly 1-2 F-16´s  with several 500 lb PGM.  st. petersburg might survive.

 

Edited by bd1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Perun said:

Well Russia is in europe, in fact 40% of europe is Russia and 15% of european population is Russian. 

Who knows were russian missile is pointed.

As I remember US first backed from ABM treaty, then from INF treaty then from open sky treaty and maintain stockpile of +150 nuclear bombs in europe + British and French nuclear arsenal. And Estonia intends to arm itself with rockets reaching St. Petersburg

Irrelevant. He broke the INF treaty, stuffed Kaliningrad full of offensive weaponry, then bleats someone is going to do the same in Ukraine. Sorry, retroactive justification and I'm not buying. They made exactly this same mistake in the late 70s, they tried to create an advantage, and ended up less secure than before.

Oh yes, ABM, when I had by ass ripped off on tanknet by RMGill in 2001, when I pointed out it was stupid, shortsighted and likely to alienate Russia. And still I get my balls busted on this site by the Russian contingentfor being anti Russian.  :)

Fine, so let's park a Vanguard and a Le Triomphant 300 klicks off the Kola Peninsular. Seems fair, right?

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Josh said:

If Joe doesn't show up, then there's nothing to discuss. Though it seems pretty clear diplomacy on the issue is already done and I can't see Putin entertaining this idea for a moment.

Biden  is toxic and his political instincts are vicious and uncompromising.   Zelensky should get his ass to Moscow and leave the geniuses of the Biden administration out of it.

 

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Perun said:

Mates you dont understan it, all time  you pointed out what russians are doing but when that same thing were first done by NATO then is justified. Isnt that hypocritic

Unlike what Bo jan continually assumes, I make no claims NATO is always right. The way we treated Russia in the 1990s was criminally clueless, and it was no better in the early 2000s. I said so at the time, many of you were not here then. You know only the post 2014 me.

None of this justifies what is being to Ukraine or Georgia. None of it justifies the arm buildup, or the sundry other bullshit we have had to put up with from Putin, whether it's chemical assassins of flying nuclear bombers through European airspace with the transponder turned off.

I started out with nothing but charity for Russia. After 2006, 2008,2014 and 2018, im all spent out.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Perun said:

Not wreally, after all how much km is NATO from Petrograd (St. Petersburg)

With no nuclear weapons at all, and no non-local forces except quarterly rotations of four (4) fighter aircraft for Baltic Air Policing until 2014. And even now, NATO adheres to the letter of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act of not basing any nuclear weapons or carrier systems, or any permanent "substantial" forces (generally interpreted to be above brigade level, though some say corps level) in Eastern Europe, even though "the current security situation" stipulated as the base of that obligation has clearly changed with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and annexion of Crimea.

I guess though for a country that feels threatened whenever a US Marine on the embassy detachment in Dublin leaves the compound for a smoke, it's enough to give them the shivers, poor snowflakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Perun said:

Mates you dont understan it, all time  you pointed out what russians are doing but when that same thing were first done by NATO then is justified. Isnt that hypocritic

It is not hypocritic - it is doublethink, they do believe in it.

Возможно, это изображение (1 человек и текст «Bryan MacDonald @27khv US: The age of spheres of influence is over. RUSSIA: Okay, we will send troops to Cuba then. US: You can't, because that is our sphere of influence. RUSSIA: But Ukraine is our sphere of influence, so you get out of there. US: The age of spheres of influence is over. R3blK TBиTa: aHrлийcKий, nepeBeAeHo c nomowbю Google cwa: 3noxa cфep BлиRHиR 3aKoH4илacb. poccиR: xopowo, TorAa mbl oTnpaBиm BoйcKa Ha Ky6y. cwa: Bbl He moжeTe, noTomy 4To 3To Hawa cфepa BлиRHиR. poccиR: Ho yKpaиHa 4To иAиTe oTTyAa. cwa: 3noxa cфep BлиRHиR 3aKoH4илacb. Hawa cфepa BлиRHиR, TaK»)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Perun said:

You answered my question with question :) and actualy didnt answer

To answer your question, NATO would wonder why in the world Belgium would do that.  Unlike the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union, NATO and the EU, with all they imply, still exist.  Even if Belgium withdrew from both, they'd have no reason to fear invasion from their neighbours.  Letting Russia station nuclear weapons there would make no sense at all.

The real issue isn't some stupid hypothetical, it's the fact that the former Warsaw Pact nations and former Soviet Republics subjugated by Moscow with brutal force decided to join the West.  When they did, there were no garrisons of NATO troops or deployments of nuclear weapons.  In the last few years, since Putin has been threatening them and has invaded Ukraine, there have been small deployments of NATO forces in the Baltic's and comparatively small exercises in Poland.  No nuclear weapons have been deployed or are planned to be deployed.  There is no modern Missile Crisis like in 1963.  There was none in 2014 when Putin invaded Ukraine.  So why are you making the comparison?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, R011 said:

To answer your question, NATO would wonder why in the world Belgium would do that.  Unlike the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union, NATO and the EU, with all they imply, still exist.  Even if Belgium withdrew from both, they'd have no reason to fear invasion from their neighbours.  Letting Russia station nuclear weapons there would make no sense at all.

The real issue isn't some stupid hypothetical, it's the fact that the former Warsaw Pact nations and former Soviet Republics subjugated by Moscow with brutal force decided to join the West.  When they did, there were no garrisons of NATO troops or deployments of nuclear weapons.  In the last few years, since Putin has been threatening them and has invaded Ukraine, there have been small deployments of NATO forces in the Baltic's and comparatively small exercises in Poland.  No nuclear weapons have been deployed or are planned to be deployed.  There is no modern Missile Crisis like in 1963.  There was none in 2014 when Putin invaded Ukraine.  So why are you making the comparison?

That was hypothetical question for comparison. The question was what would UK or US think if Russian forces were deployed, as you said in small numbers, on the their borders. Whay cant you see that there is no diference between soviet troops for example on Cuba and NATO troops on Russian borders. It is same thing. 

Edited by Perun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Perun said:

That was hypothetical question for comparison. The question was what would UK or US think if Russian forces were deployed, as you said in small numbers, on the their borders. Whay cant you see that there is no diference between soviet troops for example on Cuba and NATO troops on Russian borders. It is same thing. 

Given that Russian aggression in Ukraine and threats to the Baltic nations predated any deployment of NATO troops "on Russian borders", that excuse is nonsense.  There is no comparison to Cuba.  Even then, that crisis was caused by the deployment of Soviet nuclear weapons.  The only people deploying nuclear weapons east of the old IGB and west of the Russian border with Ukraine is Russia.

Let's put some perspective here.  CENTAG has not reformed in Poland.  The US is not practicing REFORGER. There is no British Army of the Vistula. The armies in the old WP countries along the old Soviet border are not the 1989 Bundeswehr.  Ukraine was not joining NATO and had made no threats to Russia before Russia seized the Crimea and unofficially seized the Donbas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, R011 said:

Given that Russian aggression in Ukraine and threats to the Baltic nations predated any deployment of NATO troops "on Russian borders", that excuse is nonsense.  There is no comparison to Cuba.  Even then, that crisis was caused by the deployment of Soviet nuclear weapons.  The only people deploying nuclear weapons east of the old IGB and west of the Russian border with Ukraine is Russia.

Let's put some perspective here.  CENTAG has not reformed in Poland.  The US is not practicing REFORGER. There is no British Army of the Vistula. The armies in the old WP countries along the old Soviet border are not the 1989 Bundeswehr.  Ukraine was not joining NATO and had made no threats to Russia before Russia seized the Crimea and unofficially seized the Donbas.

That was the old way, no need to station armies on the Vistula (for now). Now is the time for fifth columnists. Intelligence agencies masquerading as NGO's, and color revolutions beginning with mostly peaceful protests funded with $$ from foggy sources.  See ambassador Nuland or the Arab spring.

I just don't see all the fuss over Ukraine. How did they become the Boston of 1776? Their freedom being the world's freedom. If they fall, so does Washington. The domino theory on steroids. 

The idea that a nation's territory is inviolable at any and all times does not stand the test of history. It is a lie. The fact that a territorial taking may lack moral backing does not change that fact. The concern for those living in those areas varies according to the mode of the day. See Kosovo, or any of the territories that changed hands after WW22 WW1, or any of the European wars of the 19th century.

The idea that Ukrainians are under no foreign influence is laughable. I can imagine the promises that are being whispered in Zelensky's ears if they only poke the Russians one more time. 

I am not saying the Russians are the good guys. I am saying to think in terms of Ukrainians good and Putin and the Russians bad is allowing yourself to be led around by the nose. The west would let Ukraine burn to the ground in war between the Ukrainians and Russians-- if it kept the Russians as far away as they are, and it weakened them politically. 

It is true that Ukraine did not threaten Russia before the invasion in 2014. It was Nuland's recorded  call to another political  which sounded like the U.S. was picking the Ukrainian government that started the Russian invasion ball rolling. The Russians, it turns out, would not accept that. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what gives Russia the right to do that?  Were American troops coming to "assist" their favoured politicians like the Soviets did in East Berlin, Budapest, Prague, and Kabul? Were American troops going to be invited to station missiles in Ukraine as Castro invited the Soviets?  Did Ukraine start a war with Russia as Nazi Germany did? Were ethnic Russians the victims of Ukrainian genocide?  Is there reason an honest person might think Ukrainians were ethnically cleansing eastern Ukraine as Serbs [and everyone else] did in Bosnia and were thought to be doing in Kosovo? Have all the treaties and agreements regarding wars of aggression and annexation in the last century expired?

Edited by R011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Perun said:

That was hypothetical question for comparison. The question was what would UK or US think if Russian forces were deployed, as you said in small numbers, on the their borders. Whay cant you see that there is no diference between soviet troops for example on Cuba and NATO troops on Russian borders. It is same thing. 

Completely different. Because when those Soviet troops went to Cuba, they didnt tell the Americans they were taking nuclear weapons with them. In fact, they assured the Americans they would do no such thing.

People misunderstand the Cuban missile crisis. It was not that the Americans objected to ballistic missiles in Cuba, they had already done much the same thing in Turkey already. It was that Khruschev told Kennedy there wouldnt be any introduced under any circumstances, hence Kennedy said they would not accept ballistic missiles in Cuba (feeling pretty safe to do so) and being painted into a corner he then nearly had to fight his way out of. With a little more honesty, Khrushchev probably could have got his missiles into Cuba and kept them there.

By contrast, everything NATO has done in Eastern Europe was cleared with Russia first. There were Russians at NATO whilst this process was ongoing. We talked over all of them being present in NATO first. The ONLY thing the Americans did that can be seen to infringe Russian relations was the introduction of ABM, and even that cannot be seen to have broken any prior agreements. It would have been treaty breaking, except the Americans withdrew from it first. By contrast, Russia broke the INF treaty, and then left it to the Americans to end it.

You keep saying 'how would we feel', when Russia has pretty much done as its felt for the better part of the last 20 years with zero fucks given. And frankly its about damn time NATO did the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ex2cav said:

That was the old way, no need to station armies on the Vistula (for now). Now is the time for fifth columnists. Intelligence agencies masquerading as NGO's, and color revolutions beginning with mostly peaceful protests funded with $$ from foggy sources.  See ambassador Nuland or the Arab spring.

I just don't see all the fuss over Ukraine. How did they become the Boston of 1776? Their freedom being the world's freedom. If they fall, so does Washington. The domino theory on steroids. 

The idea that a nation's territory is inviolable at any and all times does not stand the test of history. It is a lie. The fact that a territorial taking may lack moral backing does not change that fact. The concern for those living in those areas varies according to the mode of the day. See Kosovo, or any of the territories that changed hands after WW22 WW1, or any of the European wars of the 19th century.

The idea that Ukrainians are under no foreign influence is laughable. I can imagine the promises that are being whispered in Zelensky's ears if they only poke the Russians one more time. 

I am not saying the Russians are the good guys. I am saying to think in terms of Ukrainians good and Putin and the Russians bad is allowing yourself to be led around by the nose. The west would let Ukraine burn to the ground in war between the Ukrainians and Russians-- if it kept the Russians as far away as they are, and it weakened them politically. 

It is true that Ukraine did not threaten Russia before the invasion in 2014. It was Nuland's recorded  call to another political  which sounded like the U.S. was picking the Ukrainian government that started the Russian invasion ball rolling. The Russians, it turns out, would not accept that. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

If you wont respect freedom and democracy in Ukraine, then why should anyone respect yours in America? And as seen by Putin's own actions, he doesnt. You think its a zero sum game, and it is, except if Ukraine loses, we are all going to lose by encouraging this thug to go and do it again.

We understood this all through the cold war. Why is it so difficult for people to switch gears back to the values we held then? Putin has absolutely no problem doing so, he has been in cold war mode since 2007 and we only just noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Completely different. Because when those Soviet troops went to Cuba, they didnt tell the Americans they were taking nuclear weapons with them. In fact, they assured the Americans they would do no such thing.

People misunderstand the Cuban missile crisis. It was not that the Americans objected to ballistic missiles in Cuba, they had already done much the same thing in Turkey already. It was that Khruschev told Kennedy there wouldnt be any introduced under any circumstances, hence Kennedy said they would not accept ballistic missiles in Cuba (feeling pretty safe to do so) and being painted into a corner he then nearly had to fight his way out of. With a little more honesty, Khrushchev probably could have got his missiles into Cuba and kept them there.

By contrast, everything NATO has done in Eastern Europe was cleared with Russia first. There were Russians at NATO whilst this process was ongoing. We talked over all of them being present in NATO first. The ONLY thing the Americans did that can be seen to infringe Russian relations was the introduction of ABM, and even that cannot be seen to have broken any prior agreements. It would have been treaty breaking, except the Americans withdrew from it first. By contrast, Russia broke the INF treaty, and then left it to the Americans to end it.

You keep saying 'how would we feel', when Russia has pretty much done as its felt for the better part of the last 20 years with zero fucks given. And frankly its about damn time NATO did the same thing.

It is not diferent at all. It is the same thing. No one answered me logicaly what is diference between Soviet troops in Cuba and NATO troops only ~100 km from Petrograd. If Russia has nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad (I didnt see any proof of that) it is still Russian soil while US nuclear arsenal is not on US soil anywhere in europe.

Edited by Perun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Almost all would prefer a "USA" conquest if they could choose. Nobody wants to be conquered by the Russians.

Thirty, twenty, even ten years ago there could have been no doubt.

I am not too sure about now - Global Warmism, mandatory LGBTetc., CRT, wokeism, satanism, experimental vaccines...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...