6 ms·

The whole idea that NATO is a threat to Russia is ridiculous. Read Article 1 again. <https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm?selectedLocal

by db48x 2y ago

The whole idea that NATO is a threat to Russia is ridiculous. Read Article 1 again. <https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm?selectedLocale=en https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...>

aa-jv 2y ago
Do you know whether a Tomahawk missile is nuclear-tipped, or not? No, you don't. And neither do the Russians. So, are you going to be so superficial when Cuba gets Kalibr's deployed?
- mopsi 2y ago
  What Tomahawks, where? If this is supposed to be some kind of clever hint about weapons in countries that have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War, then unfortunately none of them have Tomahawks, or anything close to them, or anything at all beyond the domestic conventional forces, so this entire comparision bears no resemblance to reality.
  - aa-jv 2y ago
    NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past. Tomahawks were used during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Tomahawks are designed to carry nuclear weapons. I find your ignorance of this fact deplorable. Please inform yourself. Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?
    - mopsi 2y ago
      > NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past. Not true. > Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation? That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-4-855x1024.jpg https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?
      - aa-jv 2y ago
        >Not true. Yes, true: https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/conflicts-in-the-world/ukraine-russia-conflict/ukraine-secretly-requests-us-tomahawk-missiles-to-enable-long-range-strikes-in-conflict-with-russia https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/co... Tomahawks used in the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA478026 https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA478026 >That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, versus Americans deploying NATO nuclear weapons on non-NATO territory: whats the difference? >Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them? That depends - do you want to die in a thermonuclear blast? Because that's how you die in a thermonuclear blast.
        mopsi 2y ago
        > Yes, true No, not true. Nothing in any of the provided sources says that Tomahawks have ever been given to Eastern Europe nor that there is any intention to. Ukraine has requested them, but your own source says that Ukraine is "unlikely" to receive them. > Tomahawks used in the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia They put an end to 10 years of wars in Yugoslavia and brought a lasting peace to the region. In worst massacres, more people were killed by Serbs over a single weekend than died in the entire NATO aerial bombardment campaign that lasted several months. > Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, versus Americans deploying NATO nuclear weapons on non-NATO territory: whats the difference? Again, nothing you say is true. No-one has given anyone Tomahawks, but Russia has deployed their missiles to Belarus: "Putin confirms first nuclear weapons moved to Belarus" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65932700 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65932700 > That depends - do you want to die in a thermonuclear blast? That's the question Russians should ask themselves when they keep pushing westwards with their nukes and attacks on European countries. Do Russians want to die in a thermonuclear blast that they act so recklessly?
        aa-jv 2y ago
        >No, not true. Nothing in any of the provided sources Read my words again: the threat was made. Russia responded to that threat, as the notion that nuclear-capable missiles would be deployed on borders within minutes of Moscow was deemed intolerable, and thus the deployment was cancelled. >They put an end to 10 years of wars in Yugoslavia and brought a lasting peace to the region. How many years of war occurred between the coup-government of Ukraine and the territory of Donbass before Russia invaded? And, again, the duplicity of your argument is clear: illegal wars are 'okay' as long as they result in peace and quiet afterwards? That's not working out much for Gaza though, is it? > No-one has given anyone Tomahawks, I didn't say they did - I said that the threat to do so was made, and it was made - and as a result, we have war and calamity in Europe where we could have had a real, lasting peace between aligned nations. If not for that coup. >Russia has deployed their missiles to Belarus Ah, and the USA has deployed their missiles all over Europe - so do allies have a right to engage in military agreements, or do they not? You can't have it both ways. This is the entire point of MAD, which you seem to think doesn't apply to Washington, but does to Moscow.
- stoperaticless 2y ago
  What does it mean to be “nuclear tipped”? As in uses depleted uranium (because of density characteristics) or radioactive waste stuff just for being radioactive? (Obviously mass of tomahawk is too low for any chain nuclear reaction)
  - aa-jv 2y ago
    As in, contains a nuclear warhead. The Tomahawks are nuclear-capable. Would you want nuclear-capable missiles deployed on your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city?
dotancohen 2y ago
Yes, and Russia had similar "we won't be the first to be aggressive" language for many years as well. You can see that with new leadership comes new interpretations of when "peaceful means" are no longer sufficient. From Russia's perspective, NATO has been infringing on both Russia's sphere of influence and on her buffer states. Russia has _twice_ been invaded by the Europeans, she hasn't forgotten that. And with Ukraine in NATO, there are no natural barriers between European powers and Russia. Need I remind you how the US responded when the USSR set up missile positions in Cuba?
- yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
  > And with Ukraine in NATO, there are no natural barriers between European powers and Russia. I have already asked you in another comment to tell me how long NATO has been literally on Russia’s border. Why are you dodging the question?
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
      For. How. Long. Has. NATO. Been. On. Russia’s. Border. Again, you are dodging the question. Either you will say they aren’t, in service of your argument that russia invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO from coming up to their border, in which case you would be wrong since NATO has shared a border with russia in Europe for at least the past 24 years. Or, you will say at least the past 24 years, which undermines your argument that russia only invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO appearing at their immediate borders, since they were already there. For at least the past 24 years. We can do this all day. I’ve got another question for you. Almost certainly you will dodge it, because it is blindingly obvious that you are not impartial as you pretend to be, and that you have a strong bias for the Putin regime and its illegal war and genocide, but let’s go through the motions anyway. How did the Moskva sink?

by db48x 2y ago

aa-jv 2y ago

Do you know whether a Tomahawk missile is nuclear-tipped, or not? No, you don't. And neither do the Russians. So, are you going to be so superficial when Cuba gets Kalibr's deployed?

mopsi 2y ago
What Tomahawks, where? If this is supposed to be some kind of clever hint about weapons in countries that have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War, then unfortunately none of them have Tomahawks, or anything close to them, or anything at all beyond the domestic conventional forces, so this entire comparision bears no resemblance to reality.
- aa-jv 2y ago
  NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past. Tomahawks were used during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Tomahawks are designed to carry nuclear weapons. I find your ignorance of this fact deplorable. Please inform yourself. Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?
  - mopsi 2y ago
    > NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past. Not true. > Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation? That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-4-855x1024.jpg https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?
    - aa-jv 2y ago
      >Not true. Yes, true: https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/conflicts-in-the-world/ukraine-russia-conflict/ukraine-secretly-requests-us-tomahawk-missiles-to-enable-long-range-strikes-in-conflict-with-russia https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/co... Tomahawks used in the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA478026 https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA478026 >That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, versus Americans deploying NATO nuclear weapons on non-NATO territory: whats the difference? >Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them? That depends - do you want to die in a thermonuclear blast? Because that's how you die in a thermonuclear blast.
      - mopsi 2y ago
        > Yes, true No, not true. Nothing in any of the provided sources says that Tomahawks have ever been given to Eastern Europe nor that there is any intention to. Ukraine has requested them, but your own source says that Ukraine is "unlikely" to receive them. > Tomahawks used in the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia They put an end to 10 years of wars in Yugoslavia and brought a lasting peace to the region. In worst massacres, more people were killed by Serbs over a single weekend than died in the entire NATO aerial bombardment campaign that lasted several months. > Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, versus Americans deploying NATO nuclear weapons on non-NATO territory: whats the difference? Again, nothing you say is true. No-one has given anyone Tomahawks, but Russia has deployed their missiles to Belarus: "Putin confirms first nuclear weapons moved to Belarus" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65932700 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65932700 > That depends - do you want to die in a thermonuclear blast? That's the question Russians should ask themselves when they keep pushing westwards with their nukes and attacks on European countries. Do Russians want to die in a thermonuclear blast that they act so recklessly?
        aa-jv 2y ago
        >No, not true. Nothing in any of the provided sources Read my words again: the threat was made. Russia responded to that threat, as the notion that nuclear-capable missiles would be deployed on borders within minutes of Moscow was deemed intolerable, and thus the deployment was cancelled. >They put an end to 10 years of wars in Yugoslavia and brought a lasting peace to the region. How many years of war occurred between the coup-government of Ukraine and the territory of Donbass before Russia invaded? And, again, the duplicity of your argument is clear: illegal wars are 'okay' as long as they result in peace and quiet afterwards? That's not working out much for Gaza though, is it? > No-one has given anyone Tomahawks, I didn't say they did - I said that the threat to do so was made, and it was made - and as a result, we have war and calamity in Europe where we could have had a real, lasting peace between aligned nations. If not for that coup. >Russia has deployed their missiles to Belarus Ah, and the USA has deployed their missiles all over Europe - so do allies have a right to engage in military agreements, or do they not? You can't have it both ways. This is the entire point of MAD, which you seem to think doesn't apply to Washington, but does to Moscow.
stoperaticless 2y ago
What does it mean to be “nuclear tipped”? As in uses depleted uranium (because of density characteristics) or radioactive waste stuff just for being radioactive? (Obviously mass of tomahawk is too low for any chain nuclear reaction)
- aa-jv 2y ago
  As in, contains a nuclear warhead. The Tomahawks are nuclear-capable. Would you want nuclear-capable missiles deployed on your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city?

dotancohen 2y ago

Yes, and Russia had similar "we won't be the first to be aggressive" language for many years as well. You can see that with new leadership comes new interpretations of when "peaceful means" are no longer sufficient. From Russia's perspective, NATO has been infringing on both Russia's sphere of influence and on her buffer states. Russia has _twice_ been invaded by the Europeans, she hasn't forgotten that. And with Ukraine in NATO, there are no natural barriers between European powers and Russia. Need I remind you how the US responded when the USSR set up missile positions in Cuba?

yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
> And with Ukraine in NATO, there are no natural barriers between European powers and Russia. I have already asked you in another comment to tell me how long NATO has been literally on Russia’s border. Why are you dodging the question?
- dotancohen 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
    For. How. Long. Has. NATO. Been. On. Russia’s. Border. Again, you are dodging the question. Either you will say they aren’t, in service of your argument that russia invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO from coming up to their border, in which case you would be wrong since NATO has shared a border with russia in Europe for at least the past 24 years. Or, you will say at least the past 24 years, which undermines your argument that russia only invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO appearing at their immediate borders, since they were already there. For at least the past 24 years. We can do this all day. I’ve got another question for you. Almost certainly you will dodge it, because it is blindingly obvious that you are not impartial as you pretend to be, and that you have a strong bias for the Putin regime and its illegal war and genocide, but let’s go through the motions anyway. How did the Moskva sink?