No it wouldn't be a declared war, that's just silly on your part. Though we understand that you need to believe that to be true because that's your justification for that which there is no justification in regard to Russia.I Agree 100%
If Mexico or Canada allowed China to build military bases on USA borders it would be a declared war, same applies to NATO who was Planning on doing the same with Russian borders in Ukraine
Yes the western world is poking the Russian bear in its cage, and the world doesn't want the nuclear door to open
I don't think it's baffling.This whole attitude and quite frankly avoidance of the question is baffling. Because you have guns? So does Ukraine, and you're telling them to surrender.
Don't misunderstand me it's up to the Ukrainian people whether they want to continue the war and we'll keep supplying weapons. As an observer from the outside the war doesn't look like it at the beginning (they still own the north) and now retreating or regrouping gives me an uneasy feeling. For the next Arms Transfers to Ukraine (pretty impressive list) we should see an improvement, if not then Zelinsky better start thinking of peace talks to SAVE LIVES.This whole attitude and quite frankly avoidance of the question is baffling. Because you have guns? So does Ukraine, and you're telling them to surrender.
You guys always write "save lives" but all I read is "prevent ukranians from fighting back while they're raped and killed".Don't misunderstand me it's up to the Ukrainian people whether they want to continue the war and we'll keep supplying weapons. As an observer from the outside the war doesn't look like it at the beginning (they still own the north) and now retreating or regrouping gives me an uneasy feeling. For the next Arms Transfers to Ukraine (pretty impressive list) we should see an improvement, if not then Zelinsky better start thinking of peace talks to SAVE LIVES.
You are interpreting it wrong from me.You guys always write "save lives" but all I read is "prevent ukranians from fighting back while they're raped and killed".
Katyn demonstrated how surrender to the Russians is a perfectly safe option.You guys always write "save lives" but all I read is "prevent ukranians from fighting back while they're raped and killed".
Some of us remember in 1962 how the USA went nuts because Soviet missiles were found in Cuba.
Turn this around and think how the Russians must feel when NATO - which has no reason to even exist - pushes itself eastward right into their noses, despite agreements and assurances that it would not do so.
Ask the Fins or Estonians if they feel NATO has no reason to exist.
And did we invade Cuba over it? Keep in mind that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was [ostensibly] over them simply looking like they might join NATO - there were no NATO missiles (nuclear or otherwise) based or even planned to be based in Ukraine.Some of us remember in 1962 how the USA went nuts because Soviet missiles were found in Cuba.
Russia is certainly making a very good case for NATO's existence at the moment. It's somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy - if you start attacking countries because they want to join a collective defense alliance, joining the alliance sooner rather than later (i.e. before you get attacked) suddenly starts looking like an attractive proposition for your other neighbors.Turn this around and think how the Russians must feel when NATO - which has no reason to even exist - pushes itself eastward right into their noses,
Yeah, that was never a thing. The "not one inch eastward" statements by Baker were made in 1990 - prior to the collapse of the USSR - and (being the US Secretary of State) he had no authority to speak on behalf of NATO or make any binding agreements on its behalf anyways. The dissolution of the USSR in July of 1991 fundamentally changed the landscape of European alliances; you can't reasonably claim that assurances made when the USSR was still whole and the Warsaw Pact still existed should have held.despite agreements and assurances that it would not do so.
Well no, the don't. If we start right at Iraq, it wasn't a NATO thing.Ask the Iraqis, Serbs and Syrians if the Russians don't have something to worry about NATO expanding right up to their border.
NATO was not involved in Iraq. NATO countries made up parts of both coalitions (1991 and 2003), but neither was a NATO operation.Ask the Iraqis,
Ask the Albanians how they felt about being massacred.Serbs
Again, not NATO. Russia and Iran are the primary foreign operators in Syria, with the US, UK, France, and Turkey providing assistance to Syrian resistance fighters.and Syrians if the Russians don't have something to worry about NATO expanding right up to their border.
Ask the Iraqis, Serbs and Syrians if the Russians don't have something to worry about NATO expanding right up to their border.
And if Russia is being "pushed" in Syria it's because they want a naval base in the Mediterranean--which would definitely be a legitimate concern for NATOAsk the Iraqis, Serbs and Syrians if the Russians don't have something to worry about NATO expanding right up to their border.
Truth according to a Russian blogger, smiles!
I Agree, the Ukranian grave yards are full, they are looking at high school kids and retirement homes for involuntary enlistment, they have been out of ammo for months, the MSM isn't telling the truth, Pytin's Russia is pounding them with artillery fire, drones, missilesZelinsky better start thinking of peace talks to SAVE LIVES.
No need to go back so far, plenty of russian atrocities in the current century.
This war didn't start in Feb 2022, it started when the USA overthrew Ukraines government in Feb 2014, and installed a hostile government towards RussiaYou guys always write "save lives" but all I read is "prevent ukranians from fighting back while they're raped and killed".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?