Printable View
Do you realize that receiving the news that the majority of a nation trust social media Brenus might have a heart attack? Or hamorrhage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
And if you trust blogs:
https://twitter.com/TheEIU_Europe/st...67317060050944
That's not a blog, it's a tweet. Way too official for Fragony, probably a lie or a ruse depending what his secret inside sources say.
lol I got no secret sources I just prefer blogs
Then a more official update:
http://www.france24.com/en/20161031-...t-row?ref=tw_i
We aren't letting him get away so easily, a crowdfund to campaign against it raided 14.000 in just a few hours and 600 volunteered, and the day has just started. There is no middle-ground to be found for 'mr' Rutte, he either signs or he doesn't. He can sign it wouldn't be illegal, but it wouldn't exactly make him very popular (not that he isn't unpopular already)
You sound as if whatever his choice is gonna be, he is a dead meat anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Well he could immediatly could have rejected it, instead he choosed to just ignore it hoping it would just go away. He can't do anything right anymore right anymore no, everybody pro or against loathe his attitude of hoping it would just stop if he just ignored it. To be honest it really isn't about the treaty anymore for a lot of people, which is kinda wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwLWq5roN_kQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Would the Dutch people agree if the association treaty were extended to include Russia?
That would also make all the EUSSR jokes more credible finally.
We already have an association-treaty with Russia they are a valuable trading partner, especially flowers and cheese go there. But we don't have a militatary agreement with them. Who says that the association-treaty with Ukraine is just about trade is either lying or not informed. The EU wanted to do this as silent as possible and it didn't work, inquisitive people actually read what's in it, hence the 'no'. Mr Rutte keps insisting that it was just a trade-treaty but there is no way back anymore for him, we now know it isn't, and he knows that we know he knew that all the time. That's internet for ya, state-tv and 'quality newspapers' are losing ground
And you're a Nazi, because why bother with what I'm actually saying when I can just say something that sounds good to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Your logic works differently, can't do anything with it, what makes sense to you doesn't to meQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
by the way, I know that you aren't actually call me a nazi but some could think you do
So cute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I know you aren't actually saying you want all muslims out of Europe but some could think you do (when you say you want all islam out).
I know (actually hope) you aren't actually saying the EU has an association treaty with Russia, but some could think you just did....
What can I say if they think that, what they think is up to them I have no control over thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Same here then Mr. Nazi...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Been fun bye org
Did Fragony just leave?
It is the first time I hear that the EU has an association treaty with Russia. If you mean the Netherlands have some kind of agreement/treaty, it can't be called "association", since it would presuppose some kind of organization, and the Netherlands aren't one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It seems to me the two of us were inquisitive enough and didn't find any mentioning of the military part in the agreement. But you keep fantasizing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Seemed like it to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
There is much talk in Ukraine on the so-called Surkovleaks - the information from Putin's aide's computer which was hacked by "Cyberjunta". It only started to appear in western media (http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-elect...25-gsaoes.html), so you are welcome to search for it yourself. Generally, it contains the Kremlin's plans on instigating unrest in Ukraine in 2014 and on its subsequent partitioning.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/25/...ukraine-leaks/
And Russia pokes its nose everywhere - Italy including (article isn't completely available if you aren't a subscriber but enough to get an impression):
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ru...enzi-2h9kdrnqt
More on Surkovleaks:
http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINKBN12Y2P5
Gilrandir, is there a fear in Ukraine of a renewed Russian offensive in the Donbass region should Trump win the election?
I would say that the fear of offensive is minute. By now the cost of offensive for Putin has grown so much (since Ukrainian army is more prepered for it, has dugged in and is better equipped than in 2014) that he will not risk it whoever the president of America will be. On the other hand, the apprehension connected with Trump as a president is that the USA will stop supporting Ukraine or, to make it worse, will team up with Putin in putting pressure on us to change constitution (giving the occupied territories a special status), to hold elections before the border has been sealed and Russian military have vacated the premises and other unpleasant things Putin has in mind for Ukraine. Or that Trump will lift anti-Russian sanctions and recognize Crimea as a part of Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Montenegro officials claim Russia was behind the attempted coup. Some of the coup squad have martial experience in Donbas.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...tempt-43339075
I don't bother to check if your statements are true anymore, but I can tell you this is bollox without having to check.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Which one, that Montenegro officials claim something, or that their claim is correct? How can you tell it's bollox, for my sake?Quote:
I don't bother to check if your statements are true anymore, but I can tell you this is bollox without having to check.
I find myself underwhelmed.
This coup attempt, if these details are even vaguely correct, was amateurish at best. I think if the Montenegrans were making this up whole cloth as leverage in internal politics, then the plot would be a lot more 'threatening.' I could devise better. In fact, when playing D&D, I did.
Yet if we accept the story as true, what does Russia have to do with it? Some Serbs have felt a kinship with Russia for centuries now. Why would we be surprised that some Serbs chose to go and "see the elephant" by fighting for a Pro-Russian militia? In my own Civil War, a number of our Irish volunteers in the Army of the Potomac spoke only Gaelic when they arrived. Foreign born volunteers are scarcely rare. The Brits did not blame us when some of them went home and joined the Fenians in 1867.
This is hardly conclusive evidence for a Russian backed plot for Serb domination of the Balkans. If there were such a plot hatched by Russia -- led by ex KGB folk -- I suspect it would be better funded, organized, planned, and led then this shocking cock-up.
Offer your reading of the event and we will consider how plausible it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
There are two reasons why Sarmatian considers it bollox:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
1. It was linked by me (never mind that it was not MY claim).
2. It implicates Russia.
Russia is the one who voiced its dissatisfaction with Montenegro joining NATO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The evidence is far from being conclusive - yet Russia said the same about its participation in the Crimea operation, MH17 and the Donbas wild goose chase. Who knows what facts will surface sooner or later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Moreover, we sometimes tend to overestimate things, including the might of Russian special services. Even if they put their mind into it there is some/fat/slim (choose to your liking) chance that the plot can go wrong - the way it was with the so-called "Russian spring". Let's suppose they outsourced their coup hoping it would be too easy to bother overtaxing themselves.
Because it is a tried and true method of current Montenegro strongman to portray himself as a defender of Montenegro against foreign interest and/or plots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
It's a tactic he's been employing with varying success for the last 2.5 decades of his rule. No one usually pays attention, but now the story was picked up by some because it involves Russia.
The basis of the current opposition also has been formed a long time ago, early 2000's, at the time when Russia couldn't have possibly had power/funds/means to influence it.
Is it possible that Russia sent some funds to the opposition? Yes, I wouldn't rule it out, but to say that Russia controls the opposition or is organizing coups is silly.
Interestingly, the current narrative of historically strong Russian/Serbian relationship isn't really justified. Serbia was never Russian first choice. Actually, Bulgarians were Russian favourites. Serbs were, correctly or incorrectly, seen as being under too much western influence, even in the 19th century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Not really related to the talk at hand, just thought it could be interesting.
It is also silly to think that Russia doesn't mind Montenegro joining NATO. And by now we know what Russia can do if it wants to prevent a country from joining NATO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
More details on Surkovleaks:
https://medium.com/dfrlab/breaking-d...3cb#.jzmq2bvrh
Russian political elite perceives NATO as an unfriendly alliance. In that light, it obviously minds anything involving NATO. That doesn't mean they're gonna execute coups willy nilly all around the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
My thoughts exactly. And this effort was willy-nilly and poorly planned. Is it possible Russia abetted? Yes. But I deem it improbable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Kudos to Sarmatian for a solid post.
Let's recall the process of ways, means, and ends. Montenegro accession is a nice symbolic boost for America, but a very limited one. Also from a military perspective, Montenegro is a tiny country with a not-very-strategic position, and fewer resources and smaller population than the Baltic countries. Its military, though participating in the process (and having participated in various NATO programs in past years) is never going to amount to more than the gendarmerie of a small town. Russia, to voice its displeasure, has more tools closer at hand, in Syria, in Ukraine, Romania, Poland, the Balkans, Scandinavia, etc. for causing disruption, calling attention to itself, changing global perceptions...Quote:
It is also silly to think that Russia doesn't mind Montenegro joining NATO. And by now we know what Russia can do if it wants to prevent a country from joining NATO.
It is deeply unlikely they ever had the resources for a coup in Montenegro, or that they could develop them within a year. Slightly likelier would be that they sponsored a disruptive 'suicide coup', but its hard to see how it furthers Russian interests in any respect, only costing Putin some of his hard-earned aura of canniness and further steeling European countries to guard against Russian machinations.
It's a bad idea to try to directly compare this to the Turkish coup attempt in the summer, so I'll simply urge a consideration of how much Russia could have had to play in that affair going by this attitude. It's not out of the realm of possibility, but it assumes so much in terms of unknown or unknowable secret resources, secret goals, secret actors, secret decisions, and secret communications that it verges on 'Aliens did it' for solid ground. That kind of speculation isn't worth the time unless you have something concrete to point out.
No need to do it "all around the world". It may focus on those who were within their orbit not long ago and then pivoted NATOwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Montenegro IS in the Balkans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
All those considerations are reasonable. Perhaps there is an explanation for a precipitate and unannounced visit of Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev to Serbia just when the scandal was evolving? And the deportation from Serbia two Russian citizens who were allegedly party to the purported coup?
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/spy-...elations-55921
It is, but it is unimportant in so many ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
NATO bases already are situated much closer to Russia. If new are to be built, there are much better options, both in terms of cost and strategic position.
Military and economic power of Montenegro is insignificant.
The rocky shores of Montenegro aren't well suited to large ports. Its biggest port in the city of Bar is too shallow for bigger merchant ships, let alone big military ships, and there are at least a few better port options in the circle of 200-300km.
I could go on, but you get the gist. Those are the main reasons I don't believe Montenegro is worth it. Just like how they survived as independent state next to huge Ottoman Empire for more than a century - nobody really gives a ****! You may choose to believe that, or you may trust the chief prosecutor from Montenegro who insists there is no evidence of Moscow involvement. Or don't believe any of that, I really don't care.
If it is so insignificant, why Russia is so disturbed about it joining NATO? And there is still no explanation to Patrushev's helter skelter visit to Serbia and two Russians ostensibly involved into the coup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Personally, I believe he came for sex and booze, but officials maintain it was about enhancing cooperation in the sphere of security, especially concerning international terrorism, migrant crisis and situation in Kosovo. He met with minister of foreign affairs and minister of interior affairs, payed his respects to Russian soldiers who died during liberation of Belgrade, held a press conference... Everyone on both sides said the visit was planned for months in advance, and that there were no Russian citizens deported from Serbia.
The entire story was launched after a daily newspaper "Danas" wrote an article about it, citing unnamed source. That newspaper is known for making outlandish claims and is not considered reputable.
But, we all know that's bollox and he came for sex and booze.
Montegro: 622,000 hbts.
US (NATO) base in Kosovo.
Really, what would be the interest of Montenegro for NATO? Naval Bases? Croatia would be more than happy to offer that... And Croatia has all the former military naval ports built by Tito.
The only thing worth to fight for in Montenegro is olive oil and Malboro made in Russia smuggling....
hbts.?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Hobbits? They'd be in NATO in a hot minute if that's true.
So NATO is inveterately stupid in accepting Montenegro?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I think the idea is more consolidation - who isn't NATO at this point? Austria, Switz, Scandinavia, Serbia/Kosovo - after that we get into the direct confrontation (with Russia) territory. Also the symbolic statement given how US-Russia relations have gone since 2009.Quote:
So NATO is inveterately stupid in accepting Montenegro?
Left out non-members (disregarding things like Malta):
*Ireland - also claims neutrality
*FYROM/Republic of Macedonia - blocked by Greece
*Bosnia - likely to join in coming years
"So NATO is inveterately stupid in accepting Montenegro?" No. But is Montenegro joining NATO is so dangerous that some need a Coup to stop it?
It might be an eye-opener, but, according to the Kremlin, NATO already IS in the direct confrontation territory aka Baltic states and Poland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
You gave reasons why Montenegro is absolutely useless for NATO. Don't they see it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
It is a pity you can't admire the uproar produced by Russian media discussing Montenergo joining NATO. The average accusation is betrayal Slavic brotherhood. Given the vitriolic character of the uproar one would think it is one of the major concerns of the Russian government.
Is this how you wanna do it? Pass over arguments by supposedly asking "insightful questions" ad nauseum until you simply bore everyone into submission?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
"Is this how you wanna do it? Pass over arguments by supposedly asking "insightful questions" ad nauseum until you simply bore everyone into submission?" I have to say for Gilrandir that is a very successful tactic. His best.
I ask this question because I see inconsistencies (and no arguments) in what Brenus claims. On the one hand, he says that Montenegro isn't worth accepting into NATO. On the other hand, he says that NATO is not that stupid to fail to see the worthlessness of Montenegro as a NATO member. The question that arises is how can wise NATO leadership make such a stupid move. And I wanted Brenus to explain it. That simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
As for the tactics you accuse me of, it is not aimed at any submission. But it is the same one your friend Brenus employs all the time. Yet it doesn't make you nauseous, does it? Quod licet jovi non licet bovi?
A new mural was spotted in Belgrade.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=30b_1478525913
Will a Serb now voice his dissatisfaction that Bandera "is glorified" in Ukraine? :laugh4:
For the first post, that wasn't at all what he was saying, but I don't really care about your opinion. Whenever you become too obnoxious, the thread turns into you communicating with yourself by posting link after link. If that's ok with you, go right ahead.
As far as second post is concerned, I have no idea who the guy is and what he has to do with Bandera.
"And I wanted Brenus to explain it." Err, why should have to explain your mental process? Be responsible for your words, I am for mine.
You saw what you saw and it doesn't mean it was the way you saw. Like it was with Putin's words on Crimea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
You forgot what you taught me, Master: attack the argument, not the person.:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
As for "communicating with yourself": while not idealizing myself and my style of posting I see other reasons for such development: people just lost interest in the topic. So if I see anything that I consider worth posting I do post it.
He is a war (and not only) criminal who seems to be now glorified in Serbia (the very thing you cautioned Ukrainians against giving Bandera as an example).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
http://mashable.com/2015/04/09/russi.../#XxOx4HL.skqH
MY mental process? You make mutually exclusive claims (Montenegro isn't worth accepting into NATO and NATO is not that stupid to fail to see the worthlessness of Montenegro as a NATO member) and want ME to explain it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
"Montenegro isn't worth accepting into NATO and NATO is not that stupid to fail to see the worthlessness of Montenegro as a NATO member" These are your words, not mine. Quote?
I wouldn't call them mutually exclusive if you allow for the existence of some degree of altruism, pride and perhaps also strategic location and public image.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
It can be worthless in terms of military contribution, or that is how I understood it, but it still helps the NATO portrayal of a safety umbrella for those who feel threatened and is therefore a worthy member.
By the way, too lazy to check the originals now, but the two positions you "quoted" there basically say the same thing, that NATO shouldn't/wouldn't accept Montenegro.
Be my guest:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Ergo: Montenegro is worthless for NATO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Ergo: NATO is not that stupid to see Montenegro is worthless for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Yet we know NATO IS COOPTING Montenegro. How come?
This is how I see it. Not so Brenus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
"Ergo: Montenegro is worthless for NATO." No. Your words, not my quote. Your opinion is a country populated of 600,000 inhabitants (hbts) is worthless, not mine.
"How come?" :laugh4: That is easy to answer: To bite Russia.:laugh4:
"I wouldn't call them mutually exclusive if you allow for the existence of some degree of altruism, pride and perhaps also strategic location and public image." Altruism? We speak of the same NATO? Strategic location? Did you had a look on a map, recently? Public image, perhaps.
Montenegro feel threatened by whom?
And can I remind you that two NATO member-states of NATO and more or less at war? So much of the "safety umbrella" .
# 1238 - the whole post:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
My words, you say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
This thread doth wander...
"My words, you say?" Yes. Where do you read unworthy (worthless)? You are a linguist, you know the importance of words. There are no reason for NATO to built bases in Montenegro, it is not the same of Montenegro is unworthy as you said, is it?
You put a disdain that I didn't. YOUR words, not mine. And you can try to distort the wording as much you want, YOU put an adjective in it.
So, except to upset Russia, what is the reason to have Montenegro in NATO? Naval bases? No. Land bases? No. Airbases? No. For each NATO as plenty of all all around the Balkans. This not a the disdain you showed to Montenegro, it is a reality check.
You should try it.
How about this for an argument in favor of Montenegro.
Other than being another country with a language desperately short of vowels to break up those strings of consonants, what is not to like?
Oh, I am in favour of Montenegro and Serbia.
Contrary to Gilrandir probably, I went often in this country kad bilo je Jugoslavija.
And I like their music,
Zabrejano Pusanje (Bosnia) https://youtu.be/zU73yqxM7iU
https://youtu.be/0IofpvkGJPM
Merlin (Bosnia), https://youtu.be/2Xda4BUoZ3I
Riblja Corba, https://youtu.be/VE80eImDdAQ
Balasevic and others.
And their women are beautiful. https://youtu.be/vwMyF7ic_Ys
https://youtu.be/sOId3rZrBMk
Goran Bregović, Emir Kusturica:
https://youtu.be/EZf00ad3G6o
and of course:
https://youtu.be/UqOL7LOR6ko
A black sense of humour: When they shot down the Invisible bomber, they printed a post card saying: Sorry, we didn't see it.
And Belgrade by Night with the flames of the bombing during the night. Fantastic people...
...or, it could be a case of Montenegro wanting to pursue closer relations with USA and Europe. And the rest of NATO welcoming that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
(edit: Canada too :P)
I didn't show any disdain. This is YOUR interpretation (or rather perversion) of my words. I used the word in the meaning:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
worthless adjective (NOT IMPORTANT)
not important or not useful:
She was criticized so much by her employers that she began to feel worthless.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...lish/worthless
For me, presenting no interest as a future ally = worthless as a future ally.
Superficially, NATO is simply a defense alliance. On that prima facie basis, your basic point of assessment -- value to defensive alliance -- would clearly suggest Montenegran irrelevance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
NATO is, functionally, much more than that -- for good or for ill. I think Kralizec as the right of it in his post immediately above.
"For me" Key words. Your words. And because you are now obliged to accept these are you words, you try to twist around:laugh4:
So, if worthless if not offensive (and it is) why did you start all this polemic?:laugh4:
I said that "for me, presenting no interest as a future ally = worthless as a future ally." The second part of the equation is mine, but the first is yours. I used the word "worthless" in the meaning "not important or not useful" which allowed me to claim the two statements are synonymous. Evidently, you imparted this word with a different meaning. So it is a simple misunderstanding. No intentional twisting or other sins you accuse me of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
It is not offensive in the meaning I used it. Just like in: The information on how a language and a dialect are different is worthless. No disdain or humiliation. Just stating the fact that someone isn't interested in the information. That simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
As for starting a polemic: I found what I considered to be a contradiction in your claims. When you explained that NATO did see a purpose in accepting Montenegro (to piss off Russia) I figured out that, in fact, your statement was ironical or didn't convey the whole of your mind on the issue. Again that simple. Much too often you impart me with attitudes and opinions that would fit perfectly into the image of me you have in your mind, but which, alas, doesn't coincide with the real me.
In other news:
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/hagu...-ukraine-56154, where
Also listed in the report are several key criminal complaints in connection with the annexation of Crimea, including the oppression of Crimean Tatars, arrests and unfair trials, killings and kidnappings, and forced military service.
And I remember you were very sceptical that Tatars are in for persecutions after the annexation. So I applied reality check, as you taught.
Brenus/Gilrandir:
Have you considered marriage? The two of you are starting to sound like an old married couple, locked into the same endless argument for the rest of their lives.
"The two of you are starting to sound like an old married couple" Well, I tried in vain to stay out, but sometimes...
More logical development would be a divorce, wouldn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
A follow-up on "the Montenergo coup" - officials take it seriously (some even resign):
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tion-coup-plot
They even mention names of people (Eduard Shirokov and Vladimir Popov) who are alleged organizers of the coup.
And this, evidently, doesn't bode well for Ukraine:
http://www.vox.com/2016/11/17/136732...clinton-turkey
Your "classic" old married couple would never do that -- they love the argument too much to actually end it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
This is even more disquieting:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...d78_story.html
Like Trump, Flynn has advocated forging closer ties with Russia. In interviews with The Washington Post, Flynn acknowledged being paid to give a speech and attend a lavish anniversary party for the Kremlin-controlled RT television network in Moscow last year, where he was seated next to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Can we say that Russian Foreign Office's spokesperson is a nazi/anti-semite?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...iracy-after-t/
What's happening in Kiev these days? I've found a few mentions of riots and clashes between the police and protesters, rubber bullets, tear gas, the whole nine yards, but media in English is surprisingly silent about that.
A quick look suggests the militiamen don't want peace with the separatists, which is not unexpected.
On the topic of Montenegro, it contains a significant chunk of Adriatic Coast and it's part of the old province of Illyria - both reasons to want it in NATO.
"On the topic of Montenegro, it contains a significant chunk of Adriatic Coast and it's part of the old province of Illyria - both reasons to want it in NATO." Because having been part of Illyria (wich Albania proclaims to be the descendant) is a reason to be part of NATO? As Adriatic sea is concern, so Croatia, Greece, Slovenia, so it makes the very difficult of access Montenegro a bit redundant.
No, the only really valid reason to have Montenegro in NATO is to annoy Russia.
Result: Putin is moving short range nuclear missile to Russia European borders if I have to believe the news.
Can't wait the Western powers to express their indignation and protest about this unmotivated unilateral decision.
Chill out. As the events of the last 2.5 years have shown, the West will not move further than expressing indignation and protest. On a second thought it will - I forgot grave concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
http://www.unian.info/kiev/1636182-c...ry-events.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
http://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-eurom.../28130367.html
Now everything calmed down.
What should NATO do then, in your opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
"What should NATO do then, in your opinion?" Back down. Be what NATO was supposed to be, a defensive alliance, not the armed arm of the USA's foreign policy.
According to Gilrandir, whom none can believe he is a Putin'Russia lover, Russian army is crap, ill trained, incompetent and ill equipped.
So to pretend that Russia is a like USSR is a lie.
There is no need to build more bases, to push for more putch.
Stop pretending and acting like if Russia is a super power frightening the peace, stop to treat Russia as an enemy so Russia will act as an enemy. Understanding that the last time Russia had someone telling the world that russia was the enemy, Russia paid it by million of dead.
Doesn't mean you have to accept all Russia's policy, but it might emphasise on negotiation with Russia. The entire Ukrainian debacle could have been avoided without the Coup.
Don't give me the "Putin's friend" thing. I am one the rare left on this forum who did train to face the Red Storm in the 80's and this one was far more serious than today Putin's Russia.
Facts are facts. The expansionist power today is NATO. The one having military installations all around the world is NATO. The one spending the most in military is NATO. Russia has no bases in Cuba, Canada or Mexico. NATO have bases in Poland, Norway, Turkey, Afghanistan and I can carry on.
So, the solution would have been to think first before acting and bragging. It might be to late to think, and we might be in the slope that no one controll any more, as in 1914, when every step could have been avoided, every thing could have been stop if someone in the "aggressor" side had had the idea to do so.
Reminder:
Rank Country Spending ($ Bn.)
1 United States 596.0
2 China [a] 215.0
3 Saudi Arabia [b] 87.2
4 Russia 66.4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures
One thing that's hard to swallow is, if we take Russian aggression to be of minimal impact - then what exactly is so frightening about NATO expansion? NATO is a defensive alliance and most of its members have minimal military commitments, let alone an appetite to challenge Russia. America wants to contain Russia, but it hardly wants to fight it either abroad or within Russia's borders. Today NATO is about sharing expertise and policy papers, exchange programs and technical conferences. There is nothing aggressive about this unless you specifically feel the need to keep your own options for aggression open, as Russia evidently does. The fact in itself of a check on your ability to project power should not threaten you unless you are yourself looking for conflict.
I guess Russians are not so sure about the US not planning to shred them one day. From within NATO that thought may seem ridiculous today, but maybe not so much if one grew up there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I generally agree with you though, especially the argument that sounds like "well, if every neighbor is under NATO protection, they can't invade, murder and enslave them anymore" would seem a bit weird indeed. :sweatdrop: