Putin threatens “retaliatory military-technical” measures as standoff with U.S. and NATO over Ukraine escalates


As you well know !

[–]AmHoomon 12 points13 points14 points  (5 children)

How does a defense alliance that only reacts IF someone attacks their members threaten any nation that doesn't attack a member?

I mean is the fact that Russia lacks the option of using force against neighbors without reprisal who don't enter Russia... a problem?

I am in the USA. Let me put it this way: I was tentatively for Afghanistan (and yes, had enlisted prior to 911 but could not ultimately serve to my extreme frustration due to then unknown medical issues that turned up). I was adamantly against Iraq and think sabre rattling Iran is idiotic and pointless.

I know our history, which is a mix of awful and good.

If ANY of our leaders suddenly called to invade, annex, seize or control literally one single inch of soil in any adjacent neighbor by land or sea, I would frankly say out right our leaders need to be toppled. And I mean toppled: if they didn't stand down I would say the people would in that scenario have the right to do so. Full stop.

If we proceeded and the neighbor turned their soil red with our blood, we had it coming then. Justifiably.

If THEY attacked us first to do the same, I would similarly be 100% fine with our land red with their blood.

If you don't try to fuck with NATO land, you have no issues .

Russia not being able to "bully" their neighbors isn't a bad thing. We shouldn't be able to do so either.

I favor every nation being forced to fuck off and wear a muzzle.

You. Us.

[–]ImmaculateTorus -1 points0 points1 point  (3 children)

Sorry, 1999. NATO invited a bunch of eastern bloc countries to join. And they have continued doing so ever since. Constantly expanding.

Pretending this is not some kind of American power play is ridiculous - even the Americans themselves think it is.

"Shortly after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, the George H.W. Bush administration (1989-1993) began to debate internally whether enlargement of NATO was feasible and desirable.[23] By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[23][24] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Eastern Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[23] There was an active debate within the Clinton administration (1993-2001) between a rapid offer of full membership to several select countries verses a slower, more limited membership to a wide range of states over a longer time span. Victory by the Republican Party, who advocated for aggressive expansion, in the 1994 US congressional election helped sway US policy in favor of wider full-membership enlargement.[25]"


Now let's stop for a moment and consider that camDown has a modern UI, that is secure and has the improved features that you need and your friends would say the same.