WW3 Please SAY NO!

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Makes no sense. Now, he has Ukraine as a non-NATO buffer. If he reunifies Ukraine, he has NATO (Poland, primarily) on his western border. Had Ukraine joined NATO, he'd have NATO on his western border.

Regardless, you don't just decide you're unhappy with the politics of a neighbor and then roll tanks in to destroy their lives and buildings.

By the way, NATO is a defensive alliance. It is a joint defensive pact only, not a joint offensive agreement. The only reason Putin would feel threatened by a defensive alliance would be that it poses an obstacle to his offensive war plans.

While NATO is a defensive alliance, the entire reason for it's existence and for the missile buildup for so many years during the Cold War was distrust. Both countries were aware of the balance of power regarding how many missiles each country had, as well as where they were deployed, which had a bearing on how quickly they could react to a potential nuclear attack.

If as you say, NATO is defensive, Russia may be asking why do they need to arm and deploy when we do not seek to attack them.

The U.S. also pulled out of treaties such as the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty, and the Open Skies Treaty. The U.S. pulled out of those, not Russia.

Lastly, missiles are deployed in Poland and being constructed in Romania. Russia doesn't see these as defensive actions, but provocative ones.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jgannon

While NATO is a defensive alliance, the entire reason for it's existence and for the missile buildup for so many years during the Cold War was distrust. Both countries were aware of the balance of power regarding how many missiles each country had, as well as where they were deployed, which had a bearing on how quickly they could react to a potential nuclear attack.

And Russia hasn't attacked a NATO country, and no NATO country has invaded Russia. NATO has helped keep the peace to everyones' benefit (besides Putin's expansionist desires that is.)

Originally Posted by jgannon

If as you say, NATO is defensive, Russia may be asking why do they need to arm and deploy when we do not seek to attack them.

To remain prepared, as a deterrent, obviously. Why does Russia's army conduct exercises, missile tests, etc. if they are not a threat? And what's with "If, as you say...?" Are you uncertain regarding NATO's defensive charter?

Originally Posted by jgannon

The U.S. also pulled out of treaties such as the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty, and the Open Skies Treaty. The U.S. pulled out of those, not Russia.

According to Wiki, the USSR has the most nuclear warheads in the world, 700 more than the USA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...more%20rows%20

When Russia has more weapons already, and when they either don't comply with treaties or make verification difficult if not impossible, what good are treaties?

Originally Posted by jgannon

Lastly, missiles are deployed in Poland and being constructed in Romania. Russia doesn't see these as defensive actions, but provocative ones.

Don't you think some of Russia's 1,456 deployed nuclear warheads are pointed towards Poland, Romania, and all other NATO countries?

You sure do have a one-sided view of things.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Mark17

And Russia hasn't attacked a NATO country, and no NATO country has invaded Russia. NATO has helped keep the peace to everyones' benefit (besides Putin's expansionist desires that is.)



To remain prepared, as a deterrent, obviously. Why does Russia's army conduct exercises, missile tests, etc. if they are not a threat? And what's with "If, as you say...?" Are you uncertain regarding NATO's defensive charter?



According to Wiki, the USSR has the most nuclear warheads in the world, 700 more than the USA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...more%20rows%20

When Russia has more weapons already, and when they either don't comply with treaties or make verification difficult if not impossible, what good are treaties?



Don't you think some of Russia's 1,456 deployed nuclear warheads are pointed towards Poland, Romania, and all other NATO countries?

You sure do have a one-sided view of things.

1) Russia hasn't attacked a NATO country, but that doesn't mean it was comfortable with further encirclement by NATO. Ukraine brought about the very thing it hoped to avoid, as did the U.S. and NATO. I'm still not saying Putin should have invaded. They felt threatened by further encirclement.

2) They conducted them from what I understand as a warning to Ukraine and potential NATO membership.

3 and 4) Both the Russia and the U.S have the most nuclear weapons, with Russia yes, having more. The idea of detente back in the 70s and 80s was to pull back from the potential nuclear abyss. Our leaders at that time seemingly had a full understanding of mutually assured destruction, and signed these treaties and eliminated stockpiles. The U.S. has been thumbing it's nose at this concept for 30 years first taking advantage of Russia's weakened position after the Soviet Union broke up, and continuing on a bellicose path after 9/11 in general, and increasingly toward Russia specifically after Maidan and Trumps election. The United States actually has NO MORAL GROUND to tell anyone not to invade anyone else anyway. See: Iraq, Afghanistan (who did not attack us on 9/11), Libya, and Yemen.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jgannon

The United States actually has NO MORAL GROUND to tell anyone not to invade anyone else anyway. See: Iraq, Afghanistan (who did not attack us on 9/11), Libya, and Yemen.

I don't agree with the US getting involved in all those wars, or Vietnam either for that matter. But, did the USA annex any of those countries? Did we grant them statehood, insist they fly the US flag, or speak English?

Did we subjugate them, or try to stand them up as independent, self ruling democracies?

That's a big difference.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I don't agree with the US getting involved in all those wars, or Vietnam either for that matter. But, did the USA annex any of those countries? Did we grant them statehood, insist they fly the US flag, or speak English?

Did we subjugate them, or try to stand them up as independent, self ruling democracies?

That's a big difference.

You have any idea what we did to Iraq? Or Libya? Do you know what's going on in Yemen right now?

Unfortunately, many Americans don't know what their government does and there's a selective hysteria as to what to get upset about. This is the fault mainly of our abysmal media which intentionally keeps us uninformed.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jgannon

You have any idea what we did to Iraq? Or Libya? Do you know what's going on in Yemen right now?

Unfortunately, many Americans don't know what their government does and there's a selective hysteria as to what to get upset about. This is the fault mainly of our abysmal media which intentionally keeps us uninformed.

The Middle East has been a mess for decades and continues to be, but you avoided my point. When Putin (or Hitler, or Caesar, or Alexander, or Ghengis Khan) started wars, it was to capture, plunder, and subjugate. When the USA gets involved in wars, whether misguided or not, it is to try to return countries to their people, rebuild them and provide humanitarian relief like food and medical, with their own sovereignty intact, and rulers of their peoples' choosing.