Time is on the side of the Russians in Ukraine and the Chinese on pretty much anything else when it comes to confronting the US empire.
But ever since the ceasefire in Lebanon and the fall of Assad I can’t help but feel that the Palestinian cause is getting worse every day. No one is lifting a finger for them except the Yemenis and it only seems that the Zionist fucks are getting closer to their objectives.
Civil war in “Israel” when? True Promise 3 when (lol)?
It doesn’t help that some of the loudest voices cheering for Assad’s fall where Palestinians and that sectarism is strong against Shia’s…
From NATO’s own mouth:
Despite their claims that NATO had/has any purposes other than as a Soviet deterrent, that was its main purpose and as such it should have been dissolved or fundamentally restructured after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But no, it continued on and now its main role continues to be as an anti-Russia alliance.
Fact Sheet: U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe - maybe the nuclear missiles aren’t pointed at Russia and ready to be launched at the press of a button, but do you think that the US keeps over 100 nuclear weapons (by 2021) in 5 European countries for anything other than to use it against Russia at short notice?
It seems that you just can’t see things from Russia’s perspective. I ask again, how would the US react if Mexico had Russian-controlled nuclear weapons based there and Canada started moving to join the same “defensive” alliance? This is not whataboutism, but to illustrate that NATO is understandably seen by Russia as a major threat to their national security. Does their perspective not matter?
Ummm…you do know the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore, right?
And seriously…your question about nuclear weapons proximity is completely absurd. It’s like your perspective is locked in the 1950’s. You know that both the US and Britain have nuclear submarines regularly patrolling the Baltic Sea? They have the capability to nuke Moscow within an hour of being given the order to fire. And Russia has their own nuclear submarines I’m the Atlantic that can do the same to Washington.
Acting like there is any relevance to where a nuclear weapon is stationed, with today’s weapons technology, is probably the most obviously transparent bullshit excuse that anyone could possibly come up with. The WMD story the US used for invading Iraq has more credibility…and only total rubes bought into it.
Yes, I’ve mentioned multiple times in this thread including in the discussion with you that the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. NATO should’ve rightfully been dissolved a short time after that.
You keep moving around and not addressing my questions. Let me simplify it: would you feel threatened by an adversarial nation from a different continent across an ocean placing a bunch of nuclear weapons in a country neighboring yours? Yes or no?
Lol! Man, you’re also the one that just posted that opposing the Soviet Union wasn’t the only purpose for NATO. It was also to help stabilize European politics, and unify the member states. At its core, it’s just a defensive alliance. There doesn’t have to be a specific enemy to defend against.
Currently, the US is threatening to annex territory from Denmark. That would trigger Article 5. If they decide to invade Canada…that would also trigger Article 5. If China decides to lay claim to Canada’s Northern coastline…that would trigger Article 5.
There are so many potential threats in the world, that having a defensive alliance simply makes every member nation safer. This is why so many countries have applied to join. It isn’t some sinister plan by NATO to intimidate Russia. As I said before…no one actually wants to fight Russia. Russia is just using the “threat” of NATO as a boogeyman, in order to justify their own imperialist agenda. It’s a tactic as old as time. You want to start some shit? Invent a bad guy, and pretend like what you’re doing is to defend yourself against that strawman.
And to answer your ridiculous question…again. No. It wouldn’t matter if someone right next door had nuclear capabilities. Both Russia and the US can potentially launch nukes at anyone in the entire Northern hemisphere. They’ve had that capability for decades now. It doesn’t matter if those missiles are on the far side of the planet, or right next door. It is hopelessly naive to think that distance matters. The nuclear deterrent is still the same.
The fact that you keep asking that question, like it’s some kind of “gotcha”, just tells me you don’t really understand how any of this works. This kind of logic is so archaic that it’s amazing that Russia still uses it to try and scare people. Because make no mistake…that is Russian propaganda you’re repeating. It’s pure fear mongering. Nothing more.
The first and primary reason for NATO existing: “deterring Soviet expansionism”. Distance makes a lot of difference. 30 minutes for a missile from the US to reach Russia. 2-3 minutes for one from Europe to reach them. That’s enough of a difference for people to get into bunkers or not. You are being disingenuous in not admitting that bringing nuclear weapons across an ocean and placing them next door will be perceived as very threatening, regardless of whatever explanations are given. Think about how asymmetric that power is too. The US reaches Russia in 2-3 minutes with their nuclear weapons, while it would take Russia 30 minutes to do the same. It means Russia would effectively be largely wiped out before they would have a chance to return fire to the US.
Since you’re just not willing to admit that such “defensive” moves can feel very threatening to another country despite evidence and logic, there’s no point in discussing further.
Lol! Do you feel so threatened by the fact that there’s a nuclear submarine within striking distance of your home, that you would approve of invading a neighboring country that has nothing to do with that?
If this is what scares you…and this is the kind of response that makes sense to you…then you are very easily manipulated. It implies that you would probably believe anything you are told, as long as fear was the motivator.
I haven’t mentioned a submarine in any of my posts. You’re the one who brought them up. I’m not concerned about the scenario that I described because the country I live in doesn’t have nuclear weapons from a distant foe nearby. We were discussing why Russia would legitimately feel that these things were a serious national security threat, but I see you’re intent on sealioning. I’ve had enough of it, so I will not be responding further.
Edit: on second thought, I’ve blocked you since you’re not willing to have an honest discussion.
Edit 2: unblocked you because I decided my threshold for blocking someone is higher than this. I just won’t discuss politics with you in the future.
I’ve mentioned submarines several times, as an example of how stupid the “nukes next door” thing is. They’re already “next door”. There are nuclear submarines capable of hitting Moscow already patrolling the Baltic Sea. It doesn’t matter if they are right next door on land, or right next door in the water. They are already there, and have been for decades.
I live in a coastal city, and we all know for a fact that there are Russian submarines patrolling the waters off our coast. There are not enough bomb shelters in the world for everyone to get into one before they’d have a chance to launch. Do you understand how naive this line of reasoning is? Bomb shelters are only good, if you have one right under house…and you never leave home.
What prevents a nuclear attack from happening, is not how far away the bombs are. It’s the fact that if anyone launches a nuclear strike against someone else…they will be met with nuclear level retaliation. Distance isn’t what keeps you safe. The threat of mutually assured destruction does. You would have to be God-tier insane to actually use nukes against a civilian population. It would guarantee your own destruction.
This is an “honest discussion” about nuclear war. What you are doing is not. You are basing your entire argument on outdated, and utterly baseless fear mongering tactics. It is not a valid argument. At all. It makes no sense whatsoever that you keep trying it.
You’re just not willing to accept that I may even possibly have valid points and are now laughing and accusing me of dishonesty. That’s enough. Like I said in my last post, I no longer wish to discuss this with you.