4 ms·

> 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 Kalib

by 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.
    - mopsi 2y ago
      > Read my words again: the threat was made. You are making things up at this point. Eastern Europe has no Tomahawks, and nor has anyone given any indication that this would change, nor does the extreme caution in supplying much weaker weapons give a reason to even speculate about Tomahawks. However, supplying more advanced weapons to Ukraine would be justified, given that Russia has broken the promises given to Ukraine in exchange for dismantling their nuclear weapons. I hope to see it happen! > How many years of war occurred between the coup-government of Ukraine and the territory of Donbass before Russia invaded? Zero. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that there were no "separatists" in Donbas except for unmarked members of Russian armed forces and security services, fully under Russian command. And as in Yugoslavia, many lives could've been saved if NATO was more assertive in bombing the aggressor and establishing peace instead of looking the other way. > Ah, and the USA has deployed their missiles all over Europe American missiles stand where they stood when Nixon was still in office and countries that have joined alliances since the Cold War host none of them.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, You're playing word games here to avoid acknowledging the commenter's perfectly valid point, and it's really quite silly.
  - aa-jv 2y ago
    Believe it or not, this is the basis of international law. You don't get to have standards for one nation but entirely different standards for another. The USA can deploy missiles anywhere it wants - on its territory, or on the territories of its allies. But of course it needs to suffer the consequences if it decides to forward-deploy them on someone elses territory. Same goes for Russia. Or, is there some other standard that you're applying that makes it okay for the USA to put nuclear-capable missiles on the borders of its enemies, but not okay for any other nation to do it?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      The issue here is that you're shifting the goalposts. Here's a boiled-down transcript what just transpired between yourself and the other commenter: You: NATO seeks to deploy missiles within 7 minutes flight time of Russia's capitol. That's bad, threatening. They: But we already have Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad. You: But those missiles are on Russian territory, so that makes it OK. There's simply no logic in your follow-up. Either the concern is missile proximity as you initially stated, or it isn't. And if it is -- you can't simply say it's intrinsically threatening and destabilizing when one country does it, but somehow benign and non-threatening when another country does (simply because in their case the missiles happen to be on their own territory). Plus there's Russia's announcment of its intent to employ actual nuclear-armed missiles in Belarus, which no one has mentioned. Which would seem to make its complaint about non-nuclear deployments in Ukraine (which everyone knows will be exactly that) largely moot.
      - 2y ago

by mopsi 2y ago

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.
  - mopsi 2y ago
    > Read my words again: the threat was made. You are making things up at this point. Eastern Europe has no Tomahawks, and nor has anyone given any indication that this would change, nor does the extreme caution in supplying much weaker weapons give a reason to even speculate about Tomahawks. However, supplying more advanced weapons to Ukraine would be justified, given that Russia has broken the promises given to Ukraine in exchange for dismantling their nuclear weapons. I hope to see it happen! > How many years of war occurred between the coup-government of Ukraine and the territory of Donbass before Russia invaded? Zero. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that there were no "separatists" in Donbas except for unmarked members of Russian armed forces and security services, fully under Russian command. And as in Yugoslavia, many lives could've been saved if NATO was more assertive in bombing the aggressor and establishing peace instead of looking the other way. > Ah, and the USA has deployed their missiles all over Europe American missiles stand where they stood when Nixon was still in office and countries that have joined alliances since the Cold War host none of them.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
aguaviva 2y ago
Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, You're playing word games here to avoid acknowledging the commenter's perfectly valid point, and it's really quite silly.
- aa-jv 2y ago
  Believe it or not, this is the basis of international law. You don't get to have standards for one nation but entirely different standards for another. The USA can deploy missiles anywhere it wants - on its territory, or on the territories of its allies. But of course it needs to suffer the consequences if it decides to forward-deploy them on someone elses territory. Same goes for Russia. Or, is there some other standard that you're applying that makes it okay for the USA to put nuclear-capable missiles on the borders of its enemies, but not okay for any other nation to do it?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    The issue here is that you're shifting the goalposts. Here's a boiled-down transcript what just transpired between yourself and the other commenter: You: NATO seeks to deploy missiles within 7 minutes flight time of Russia's capitol. That's bad, threatening. They: But we already have Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad. You: But those missiles are on Russian territory, so that makes it OK. There's simply no logic in your follow-up. Either the concern is missile proximity as you initially stated, or it isn't. And if it is -- you can't simply say it's intrinsically threatening and destabilizing when one country does it, but somehow benign and non-threatening when another country does (simply because in their case the missiles happen to be on their own territory). Plus there's Russia's announcment of its intent to employ actual nuclear-armed missiles in Belarus, which no one has mentioned. Which would seem to make its complaint about non-nuclear deployments in Ukraine (which everyone knows will be exactly that) largely moot.
    - 2y ago