Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No .... what I am saying ..... there is a threat from those who are militarily armed whether that be Russia or anyone else that is militarily armed ... of which there are many. Do you consider China, Iran, North Korea .... others a threat (of course)? If China, Iran, North Korea where to put a Military presence in our county (no matter how small) ... would you consider that a threat? NATO is a armed presence and is a threat. The threat of NATO presence is "supposed" to deter invasions .... it is a threat against a threat.
If "China, Iran, North Korea" put a military presence in our country (USA) that would be an invasion.
Baloney.Realistically, Russia does not view NATO as a threat .... says who? The presence of NATO is ... in the view of Russia as a threat ..... because
when a nation joins NATO a military presence is put there ..... a military presence constitutes a threat. That is the whole point of putting a military presence in place ..... it is a threat ..... ie you mess with this country .... we have a presence there and will act .... it's a threat.
Baloney. Only some people are that emotionally sensitive.A blaten display of arms is viewed as a threat by anyone.
NATO forces are not in any country other than their own.If China, Iran, North Korea where to put a Military presence in our county (no matter how small) ... would you consider that a threat? NATO is a armed presence and is a threat. The threat of NATO presence is "supposed" to deter invasions .... it is a threat against a threat.
Except Costa Rica, which only has a police force. And Nepal's military is solely dedicated to UN peacekeeping.No rational person sees every country in the world as a threat, considering every single country in the world is armed for self protection.
That's what I meant. Every country except Costa Rica and Nepal.Except Costa Rica, which only has a police force. And Nepal's military is solely dedicated to UN peacekeeping.
It was just a quibble. It didn't change your point.That's what I meant. Every country except Costa Rica and Nepal.
So? That's not putting troops inside Russia. It is not an invasion.Ukraine was seeking to joint NATO, was initially denied ... they were seeking it .... and still are.
Oh so .... if someone else does it's seen as an evasion ..... but if someone else does it (NATO).... it is not? Pretty double minded.
To be fair, Russia doesn't appear to want to annex all of Ukraine, just some parts. Their initial invasion seemed to be aimed at capturing Kyiv as quickly as possible so as to take control of the center of government. Most likely, they would have then installed a puppet regime, leaving Ukraine in a similar situation to Belarus. Some territorial concessions would be "granted" to Russia by the new government (surrender claims to Crimea, transfer Luhansk and Donetsk, and potentially Odessa as well), but an "independent" Ukrainian state would remain as a buffer.Here's another thing that doesn't make sense... Russia is afraid of Ukraine joining NATO because they want a buffer zone between themselves and NATO countries..? Well guess what happens after they take over Ukraine - They place themselves directly next to NATO countries... The exact thing they were "supposedly" trying to prevent.
...So it can't be a true concern. They don't appear to be afraid of NATO if they want to get closer and be next door neighbors!
What Russia's doing in Ukraine has nothing at all to do with NATO. It's just an excuse to steal land.
To be fair, Russia doesn't appear to want to annex all of Ukraine, just some parts. Their initial invasion seemed to be aimed at capturing Kyiv as quickly as possible so as to take control of the center of government. Most likely, they would have then installed a puppet regime, leaving Ukraine in a similar situation to Belarus. Some territorial concessions would be "granted" to Russia by the new government (surrender claims to Crimea, transfer Luhansk and Donetsk, and potentially Odessa as well), but an "independent" Ukrainian state would remain as a buffer.
At this point I'd say that's true, and it might have been an eventual end goal of the original plan, but the flimsy justification that they cooked up for the invasion wouldn't really have given them any grounds to annex Kyiv initially. That's not to say that they wouldn't have tried, but it wouldn't have been covered by even the thin veneer of legitimacy they painted their invasion with.Any "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] state" (as a puppet) their original plan left would have been west of the Dnipr and land locked. Russia would have certainly "annexed" all of "Novorossia" (Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Mikolaiv, Odesa, and Crimea) the lands taken by the Russian empire from the Cossaks and Tartars during the 18th century conquests. I doubt they would leave Kyiv in the hands of even the puppet government. Kyiv is a key city in the history of Russia. When the Rus' unified the East Slavs under one polity, they made their capital in Kyiv. When they converted to Orthodoxy it was from Kyiv.
(After doing all that, Putin would likely also formally annex the Moldovan territory of "Transnistria" adjacent to Odesa Oblast. Then we'd probably see (after a few years) [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Ukraine and Belarus merged into some sort of "Union State" with Russia under direct Moscow control.
You clearly don't know how NATO works.
Name a NATO member force that is "occupying" the US. Or Canada. Or the UK, or Lithuania, Lativa or Estonia.
Basing and hosting is not occupation.
Agreeing to another NATO member sending their troops into your territory is also not occupation.
Here's the Status of Forces agreement and International Military Headquarters agreement for NATO that covers these arrangements:
Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces
Try and find where member states are permitted to be occupied. If you're having trouble, I can give it to you in Russian.
NATO was formed because of the SOVIET UNION, not Russia. Russia may have called the shots and been the largest by population (~50% of the people) and by land area (~75% of the area controlled), but it was just part of a larger entity.
Since the fall of the USSR, NATO has added more European nations to its membership at their request. It is noteworthy that a lot of the new member are former republics of the USSR - now, I wonder why they would want to be members of a large defensive military alliance?
Tough. Russia doesn't get to dictate whether Ukraine enters NATO or not
- any more than it gets to tell Lativa, Estonia, Lithania, Norway of Finland what they can and cannot do.
Ukraine is a sovereign state and is free to enter or withdraw any alliances it wishes.
Yes, it's unfortunate there was so much dithering. It's also unfortunate there were so many internal problems in Ukraine and vacillation between Western and Russian interests which prevented earlier accession to NATO - it would have potentially avoided a lot of bloodshed.
Not really. No more than we were on the brink of WW3 during the Korean War, or the Vietnam War, or the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, or the Arab-Israeli War, or the Suez Crisis, or the Six Day War, or Yom Kippur War, or any number of proxy conflicts through the Cold War period.
Also, NATO has been involved with Ukraine since the end of the 1990s, and the process of Ukraine becoming a NATO member has been ongoing since 2002:
So, NATO is hardly involved after the fact.
Baloney. Only some people are that emotionally sensitive.
Even self defense is a threat?What I know is .... ALL governments are corrupt ..... ALL throw out propaganda .... ALL threaten one another .... with the larger ones being more heavily armed posing a greater threat ..... it is threat against threat. Threatening one another does not solve anything ..... it creates wars.
NATO IS after the fact ..... Ukraine was not allowed to join NATO .... they are not a member of NATO .... yet NATO is involved. NATO has gone outside of it's original intent and has been for quite some time.
Placing a military force of any kind is a threat. Because of threats, nations arm themselves to a certain extent and have a right to do so ..... the larger the country the larger the threat .... threats against threats.Even self defense is a threat?
What I know is ....
ALL governments are corrupt ..... ALL throw out propaganda .... ALL threaten one another .... with the larger ones being more heavily armed posing a greater threat ..... it is threat against threat. Threatening one another does not solve anything ..... it creates wars.
NATO IS after the fact ..... Ukraine was not allowed to join NATO .... they are not a member of NATO .... yet NATO is involved.
NATO has gone outside of it's original intent and has been for quite some time.
Can the latter sometimes be a wiser path than the former?Organisations grow and evolve or they die.
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?