12 Mar 2022, 7:12 am
12 Mar 2022, 7:23 am
12 Mar 2022, 7:29 am
12 Mar 2022, 7:31 am
12 Mar 2022, 7:31 am
12 Mar 2022, 7:33 am
12 Mar 2022, 7:38 am
12 Mar 2022, 7:40 am
12 Mar 2022, 7:52 am
12 Mar 2022, 7:53 am
12 Mar 2022, 8:10 am
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,279
Location: Right over your left shoulder
12 Mar 2022, 9:12 am
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
magz wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Russia's desire to maintain a sphere of influence at any cost is the main factor driving former Warsaw Pact nations and SSRs to seek protection from the west.
Indeed.We joined NATO in the 1990s exactly to get some protection from being where Ukraine is now. We knew some day it may happen... and it did. This time not to us but my faith in art 5 is only moderate.
Agreed. A part of me feels like the West isn't anymore committed to Poland than it was the last time that got tested. I'm cynical, I hope it isn't tested and that if it is I hope I'm wrong, but... I'm not very hopeful either.
NATO's decision to increase defence spending says otherwise.
Didn't France and the UK increase military spending right before the last time they failed Poland?
An increase in military spending says nothing about how that force will be used.
12 Mar 2022, 7:32 pm
Mikah wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Is it because you feel threatened by what others have said in response to your argument?
"Curious".
"Curious".
And now the armchair psychologists direct their diagnostic super powers away from Putin towards me.
This is what happens when you try to devalue my contribution.
You seem to be uncharacteristically playing "One-upmanship" for some reason, *imo*.
You have been supercilious, disrespectful, and dismissive.
My *assumption*, not an accusation, is that you are feeling defensive.
Why else would you be attempting to undermine my credibility via ad hominems?
If you have a better explanation for your dismissiveness, I'd like to hear it.
I am open-minded.
N.B.
I was initially presenting you with a question.
I wasn't being judgemental.
12 Mar 2022, 7:37 pm
kraftiekortie wrote:
Try actually LIVING in Putin’s Russia when you’ve had a lifelong taste of considerable personal freedoms.
Especially the Russia post-Ukraine invasion.
It’s a pity, really. Russia has many talented people who would have blossomed under a Western-type setup.
Especially the Russia post-Ukraine invasion.
It’s a pity, really. Russia has many talented people who would have blossomed under a Western-type setup.
If xi invades Australia, "I'd rather be dead than red", seriously.
12 Mar 2022, 7:56 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
magz wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Russia's desire to maintain a sphere of influence at any cost is the main factor driving former Warsaw Pact nations and SSRs to seek protection from the west.
Indeed.We joined NATO in the 1990s exactly to get some protection from being where Ukraine is now. We knew some day it may happen... and it did. This time not to us but my faith in art 5 is only moderate.
Agreed. A part of me feels like the West isn't anymore committed to Poland than it was the last time that got tested. I'm cynical, I hope it isn't tested and that if it is I hope I'm wrong, but... I'm not very hopeful either.
NATO's decision to increase defence spending says otherwise.
Didn't France and the UK increase military spending right before the last time they failed Poland?
An increase in military spending says nothing about how that force will be used.
*The German industrial powerhouse is part of NATO, now.
*Europe* is now unified against an expansionist tyranny.
*Ammmuuuria is still the most powerful non-nuclear military in the world.
*Collectively, NATO has a bigger nuclear arsenal than pootin's Russia.
*pootin's Russia is already suffering economically big time.
*pootin's "invincible" army has been humiliated, despite him having relocated his best troops to Ukraine.
Did you think this intelligent psychopath can't see that a war with *NATO* is a bad idea after the humiliating experience against a very poor country, devoid of significant military might like Ukraine?
Rhetorical question.
Things are different than they were in 1939.
BTW, in addition to losing many high ranking officers including 2 generals in the war, pootin has sacked 10 generals, based on what a trusted news source has said.
If pootin didn't have the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, he wouldn't be taken seriously.
The only "rabbit out of his hat" pootin has is his unholy alliance with xi.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,279
Location: Right over your left shoulder
12 Mar 2022, 9:03 pm
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
magz wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Russia's desire to maintain a sphere of influence at any cost is the main factor driving former Warsaw Pact nations and SSRs to seek protection from the west.
Indeed.We joined NATO in the 1990s exactly to get some protection from being where Ukraine is now. We knew some day it may happen... and it did. This time not to us but my faith in art 5 is only moderate.
Agreed. A part of me feels like the West isn't anymore committed to Poland than it was the last time that got tested. I'm cynical, I hope it isn't tested and that if it is I hope I'm wrong, but... I'm not very hopeful either.
NATO's decision to increase defence spending says otherwise.
Didn't France and the UK increase military spending right before the last time they failed Poland?
An increase in military spending says nothing about how that force will be used.
*The German industrial powerhouse is part of NATO, now.
*Europe* is now unified against an expansionist tyranny.
*Ammmuuuria is still the most powerful non-nuclear military in the world.
*Collectively, NATO has a bigger nuclear arsenal than pootin's Russia.
*pootin's Russia is already suffering economically big time.
*pootin's "invincible" army has been humiliated, despite him having relocated his best troops to Ukraine.
Did you think this intelligent psychopath can't see that a war with *NATO* is a bad idea after the humiliating experience against a very poor country, devoid of significant military might like Ukraine?
Rhetorical question.
Things are different than they were in 1939.
BTW, in addition to losing many high ranking officers including 2 generals in the war, pootin has sacked 10 generals, based on what a trusted news source has said.
If pootin didn't have the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, he wouldn't be taken seriously.
The only "rabbit out of his hat" pootin has is his unholy alliance with xi.
Things are different in that the likely adversary won't be the same.
It's yet to be seen if things are different in terms of who France and the UK choose to honour treaties with. While I hope that they can be trusted I don't believe my skepticism is misplaced. Time will tell.
Ideally we won't have to find out.
