Let’s have a war!

[NewtonHawk11]

Pentagon saying Russia momentum is slowing.

But has still used maybe half of their troops that are on the border.

Ukraine says almost 3,000 Russian troops have died. But that's their propaganda that they want to show that they are doing better than Russia in terms of casualties.

[twocoach]

The Russia propaganda machine is cranking a ton of anti-Ukrainian material through all forms of social media.

being an adult i can easily sort through the bull$#!t. it's one of the perks of being a cagey veteran. and not a puke that grew up thinking everything i see on the social medias is the last word.

Your posting history tends to refute this claim.

[Mjl]

They said in no uncertain terms they condemn Nazism and bigotry. People just want to believe whatever they want to believe. https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation- ... of-nazism/

Of course the official statement condemns nazism. but at the very least, the fact it's only the US and Ukraine voting against the Russians looks coincidental now. And so many other (mostly white) countries abstaining. And the otherwise vast majority of other countries (mostly of color) having no problem just voting in favor of combating nazism, even if it's the Russians advancing it.

that link mentions "thinly veiled attempts to legitimize Russian disinformation campaigns denigrating neighboring nations and promoting the distorted Soviet narrative of much of contemporary European history." What, exactly, are they talking about?

then it goes on to defend free speech. Oh good! Except that it's all over the place about what free speech is OK (nazi free speech) and what is not (some vague "distorted Soviet narrative"). At the very least, I'm left with more questions than answers.

I should mention, that last post was kind of misleading. It's not Q in the sense of the alt-lobster Q meme, but Q in that it only seems like the pussy leftists are pointing out any nazi angle to it. At the very least, I'm curious. And perhaps concerned. We've seen the western world downplay the threat of white supremacy before. Does it not concern you too?

[Qusdahl]

Twitter doesn’t count. Didn’t the bored’s self-appointed foreign policy experts tell you?

And since you didn’t answer the first time but quoted it anyway, I’ll ask again:

that link mentions "thinly veiled attempts to legitimize Russian disinformation campaigns denigrating neighboring nations and promoting the distorted Soviet narrative of much of contemporary European history." What, exactly, are they talking about?

[Qusdahl]

So as far as I can tell, NATO was formed as an alliance against Soviet expansion. Once the Soviet Union disbanded, it may have then been obsolete. But instead, it apparently continued to expand across Eastern Europe anyway.

What’s up with that?

And, for the first time ever, apparently the NATO “Response force” was activated. Not directly for Ukraine, since they’re not NATO, but for all the countries around there or something?

[Qusdahl]

Want to support the people in Ukraine? Here's how you can help

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/25/10829929 ... pport-help

[Qusdahl]

What’s this angle with allegations the Ukrainian gummint has been bombing its own civilians in the Donbass region?

Or refusing to adhere to the Minsk agreements? Which were apparently a plan to end the aggression in that Dumbass region or whatever

And since it really needs to be said, I don’t support Ukraine bombing its own people either.

[KUTradition]

So as far as I can tell, NATO was formed as an alliance against Soviet expansion. Once the Soviet Union disbanded, it may have then been obsolete. But instead, it apparently continued to expand across Eastern Europe anyway.

What’s up with that?

And, for the first time ever, apparently the NATO “Response force” was activated. Not directly for Ukraine, since they’re not NATO, but for all the countries around there or something?

where are you getting this?

NATO was formed as direct result of WWII in 1949. the link to the soviets is secondary to that and really only because nazi germany was kaput (along with mussolini), and the soviet union was the only entity left standing

it wasn’t even so much against soviet expansion as it was against communist regimes

the soviets themselves chose not to take part in europe’s rebuild after WWII

but there’s always been more to NATO than just countering the spread of communism. one could even argue that the economic agreements that stemmed from NATO and the Marshall Plan set the groundwork for the EU

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/nato

[Mjl]

Twitter doesn’t count. Didn’t the bored’s self-appointed foreign policy experts tell you?

And since you didn’t answer the first time but quoted it anyway, I’ll ask again:

that link mentions "thinly veiled attempts to legitimize Russian disinformation campaigns denigrating neighboring nations and promoting the distorted Soviet narrative of much of contemporary European history." What, exactly, are they talking about?

Russian propaganda. You know, like the stuff you keep posting here

[twocoach]

So as far as I can tell, NATO was formed as an alliance against Soviet expansion. Once the Soviet Union disbanded, it may have then been obsolete. But instead, it apparently continued to expand across Eastern Europe anyway.

What’s up with that?

And, for the first time ever, apparently the NATO “Response force” was activated. Not directly for Ukraine, since they’re not NATO, but for all the countries around there or something?

You find it strange that additional European countries that sat between NATO countries on one side and Russia on the other side chose to join NATO after the USSR fell apart and and bunch of Russian Mob oligarchs took over one of the largest and most dangerous nations on the planet? Is that what you are wondering?!?

[PhDhawk]

Q is going full randy.

"I can post all the pro-russia stuff I want as long as I say I'm not Pro-Russia"

Never go full randy.

[Qusdahl]

Trad asked where am I getting this.

All the lefty memes are pointing that much out about nato.

If you’d like a more credible source than that, how about the history page on NATO’s own website:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/decl ... 139339.htm

It is often said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union. This is only partially true. In fact, the Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

And this bit from a PBS article, tho there are plenty of others around:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/ ... e-cold-war

Russian leaders have long been wary of the eastward expansion of NATO, particularly as the alliance opened its doors to former Warsaw Pact states and ex-Soviet republics in the late 1990s (the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) and early 2000s (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia). Their fears grew in the late 2000s as the alliance stated its intent to admit Georgia and Ukraine at an unspecified point in the future.

For the Kremlin, the notion that Ukraine, a pillar of the Soviet Union with strong historic ties to Russia, would join NATO was a red line...

Russian officials say that the U.S. government made a pledge to Soviet leaders not to expand the alliance's eastern borders, a commitment they say came during the flurry of diplomacy following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and surrounding the reunification of Germany in 1990. Proponents of this narrative often cite the words that U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker said to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in February 1990, that "there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east." They say the United States and NATO have repeatedly betrayed this verbal commitment in the decades since, taking advantage of Russia's tumultuous post-Soviet period and expanding the Western alliance several times, all the way to Russia's doorstep in the case of the Baltic states...

Of course, what was promised and what was expanded and all the details are disputed.

So it seems the whole expansion of NATO despite the fall of the Soviet Union is a factor here, and has been for decades. So it just seems short-sighted to view this as Russia just arbitrarily deciding to be a bunch of shitheads all off a sudden.


NOT THAT I SUPPORT RUSSIA.

But, I’m just not sure I support the expansion of the NATO empire, either, at least if it wasn’t expanded in good faith, or something.

[KUTradition]

do why’d you leave all of that “other stuff” out of your initial post?

it matters…a bunch given the current situation

NATO has always been about much more than just the soviets, despite what putin tells you

[Qusdahl]

Q is going full randy.

"I can post all the pro-russia stuff I want as long as I say I'm not Pro-Russia"

Never go full randy.

Dude.

I’ve repeatedly condemned Russia.

I’m just seeking context for a batshit crazy situation.

It’s everyone else who is comfortable with taking a complex situation and reducing if all to some simple black and white “Russia bad” who is going full Q.

Read a goddamn history book!

[Qusdahl]

Twitter doesn’t count. Didn’t the bored’s self-appointed foreign policy experts tell you?

And since you didn’t answer the first time but quoted it anyway, I’ll ask again:

that link mentions "thinly veiled attempts to legitimize Russian disinformation campaigns denigrating neighboring nations and promoting the distorted Soviet narrative of much of contemporary European history." What, exactly, are they talking about?

Russian propaganda. You know, like the stuff you keep posting here

Yea, cuz the NATO and PBS links must be coming straight from the Kremlin.

[Mjl]

What’s this angle with allegations the Ukrainian gummint has been bombing its own civilians in the Donbass region?

Or refusing to adhere to the Minsk agreements? Which were apparently a plan to end the aggression in that Dumbass region or whatever

And since it really needs to be said, I don’t support Ukraine bombing its own people either.

"Ukraine bombing it's own people" is a non-starter. If you want to discuss the separatists and Russia and Donbas, rhetorically framing it that way indicates you aren't interested in actually knowing anything about it.

[PhDhawk]

Q is going full randy.

"I can post all the pro-russia stuff I want as long as I say I'm not Pro-Russia"

Never go full randy.

Dude.

I’ve repeatedly condemned Russia.

I’m just seeking context for a batshit crazy situation.

It’s everyone else who is comfortable with taking a complex situation and reducing if all to some simple black and white “Russia bad” who is going full Q.

Read a goddamn history book!

Hey man, I get it.

You and Tucker Carlson are both just ASKING THE QUESTIONS.

[KUTradition]

So it just seems short-sighted to view this as Russia just arbitrarily deciding to be a bunch of shitheads all off a sudden.

but it is, literally, all of a sudden. there is no action that prompted this. the majority of Ukrainians have wanted to join NATO for nearly a decade. why do you think that hasn’t happened?

similar situation as with Georgia, who also wants to join but hasn’t been allowed to

[KUTradition]

Twitter doesn’t count. Didn’t the bored’s self-appointed foreign policy experts tell you?

And since you didn’t answer the first time but quoted it anyway, I’ll ask again:

that link mentions "thinly veiled attempts to legitimize Russian disinformation campaigns denigrating neighboring nations and promoting the distorted Soviet narrative of much of contemporary European history." What, exactly, are they talking about?

twitter is fine so long as you inform yourself beyond the headline warrior bit

quit being a victim. you’re the one even admitting that you’ve looked only skin deep into some of these issues

i’m not sure as to what exactly is being referenced in that quote, but i’d imagine it has to do with what i referenced about NATO being about much more than just oppressing the poor soviets

[KUTradition]

Q is right

russia isn’t bad

the soviets weren’t bad

stalin, hitler and mussolini weren’t bad

all were just overly misunderstood

jfc, dude