Here we go again

Https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/08/us-concerned-about-russian-troop-movements-near-ukraine-discussing-with-nato.html

New spring, new warmongering US president, new wars... Ukrainians wants to join NATO and Russia doesnt allow, what could possibly go wrong..

Why are they so unreasonable, for example Serbia was invaded by USA and still declares neutrality in US-Russia tensions, but Ukraine finds itself smart to choose side? They really dont realize they put 40 million lives in danger?

25 years ago pro-US croatia ethnically cleansed serbs, but Serbia was not connected with those serbs directly so couldnt help. But anti-kiev republics (40% of them are ukrainians, not russians so i cant call them 'russian rebels'), are directly bordering Russia, so i wonder... what could go wrong this time when Ukraine invades Donbass? Can they restore control of donbass and ethnically cleanse 'russians'?

Who's gonna win; 1000 year old empire or 30 year old steppe republic?

I don't care about politics as much anymore, but Russia should take over Eastern Europe and become a much more formidable superpower to counter-act China. Russians have fewer LGBTQ folks, so they would be better equipped to counter-act the ongoing clash of civilizations against the Chinese and such. Better equipped than America

Here we go again

نوشتع شده توسط Tribune Aquila, 09.04.2021 at 16:23

I don't care about politics as much anymore, but Russia should take over Eastern Europe and become a much more formidable superpower to counter-act China. Russians have fewer LGBTQ folks, so they would be better equipped to counter-act the ongoing clash of civilizations against the Chinese and such. Better equipped than America

Russia should 'take over' East Europe as in sphere of influence, to be a buffer region between NATO and Russia, not to conquer as that bring more troubles than good (why spend siberian resources on people that hates you, Russia is not communist anymore and doesn't have to give money to be liked, but spend on its own country)

And they should help friends and allies; like Armenia, who lost most of Artsakh after Turkish-Azeri invasion, Serbia who completely lost Serbian Krajina after American-Croatian invasion, and Greece which lost northern parts of Kipros to turkish invasion.

But you are right, Clash of Civilization is real, i forgot the writer's name of the book, i think Hunthington. The world is divided on Western civ, Orthodox Christian civ, Islamic civ and Chinese civ, and people won't help and interract with each other outside their respective groups.

Atleast during Cold War the people were divided on political lines, which are easier to delete or tolerate(just dont talk about it), today its all about 'values', they politicize everything, from religion, family, economy, sexuality, identity.

نوشتع شده توسط Skanderbeg, 10.04.2021 at 08:28

نوشتع شده توسط Tribune Aquila, 09.04.2021 at 16:23

I don't care about politics as much anymore, but Russia should take over Eastern Europe and become a much more formidable superpower to counter-act China. Russians have fewer LGBTQ folks, so they would be better equipped to counter-act the ongoing clash of civilizations against the Chinese and such. Better equipped than America

Russia should 'take over' East Europe as in sphere of influence, to be a buffer region between NATO and Russia, not to conquer as that bring more troubles than good (why spend siberian resources on people that hates you, Russia is not communist anymore and doesn't have to give money to be liked, but spend on its own country)

And they should help friends and allies; like Armenia, who lost most of Artsakh after Turkish-Azeri invasion, Serbia who completely lost Serbian Krajina after American-Croatian invasion, and Greece which lost northern parts of Kipros to turkish invasion.

But you are right, Clash of Civilization is real, i forgot the writer's name of the book, i think Hunthington. The world is divided on Western civ, Orthodox Christian civ, Islamic civ and Chinese civ, and people won't help and interract with each other outside their respective groups.

Atleast during Cold War the people were divided on political lines, which are easier to delete or tolerate(just dont talk about it), today its all about 'values', they politicize everything, from religion, family, economy, sexuality, identity.

go fuck yourself no one should take over east europe leave normal people to work , we dont need new wars ww2 was enough

fuck politics its enough i love everyone in balkan

life is too short to be spend in war

We deserve peace

نوشتع شده توسط avatar, 10.04.2021 at 16:36

We deserve peace

Bulk in peace! These warmongering off topic political analysts never in their lifes visited a gym.

نوشتع شده توسط Skanderbeg, 10.04.2021 at 08:28

نوشتع شده توسط Tribune Aquila, 09.04.2021 at 16:23

I don't care about politics as much anymore, but Russia should take over Eastern Europe and become a much more formidable superpower to counter-act China. Russians have fewer LGBTQ folks, so they would be better equipped to counter-act the ongoing clash of civilizations against the Chinese and such. Better equipped than America

Russia should 'take over' East Europe as in sphere of influence, to be a buffer region between NATO and Russia, not to conquer as that bring more troubles than good (why spend siberian resources on people that hates you, Russia is not communist anymore and doesn't have to give money to be liked, but spend on its own country)

And they should help friends and allies; like Armenia, who lost most of Artsakh after Turkish-Azeri invasion, Serbia who completely lost Serbian Krajina after American-Croatian invasion, and Greece which lost northern parts of Kipros to turkish invasion.

But you are right, Clash of Civilization is real, i forgot the writer's name of the book, i think Hunthington. The world is divided on Western civ, Orthodox Christian civ, Islamic civ and Chinese civ, and people won't help and interract with each other outside their respective groups.

Atleast during Cold War the people were divided on political lines, which are easier to delete or tolerate(just dont talk about it), today its all about 'values', they politicize everything, from religion, family, economy, sexuality, identity.

Yes I read that book, the clash of civilizations by sam huntington. I didn't read the whole book, but I got a lot of my political ideas about international affairs from him

نوشتع شده توسط Brsjak, 09.04.2021 at 14:26

Hes a Putin-Kremlin bot but he must be lowest rank among them since he makes propaganda in dead browser game. However China also has similiar bot regiment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

نوشتع شده توسط Skanderbeg, 10.04.2021 at 08:28

نوشتع شده توسط Tribune Aquila, 09.04.2021 at 16:23

I don't care about politics as much anymore, but Russia should take over Eastern Europe and become a much more formidable superpower to counter-act China. Russians have fewer LGBTQ folks, so they would be better equipped to counter-act the ongoing clash of civilizations against the Chinese and such. Better equipped than America

Russia should 'take over' East Europe as in sphere of influence, to be a buffer region between NATO and Russia, not to conquer as that bring more troubles than good (why spend siberian resources on people that hates you, Russia is not communist anymore and doesn't have to give money to be liked, but spend on its own country)

And they should help friends and allies; like Armenia, who lost most of Artsakh after Turkish-Azeri invasion, Serbia who completely lost Serbian Krajina after American-Croatian invasion, and Greece which lost northern parts of Kipros to turkish invasion.

But you are right, Clash of Civilization is real, i forgot the writer's name of the book, i think Hunthington. The world is divided on Western civ, Orthodox Christian civ, Islamic civ and Chinese civ, and people won't help and interract with each other outside their respective groups.

Atleast during Cold War the people were divided on political lines, which are easier to delete or tolerate(just dont talk about it), today its all about 'values', they politicize everything, from religion, family, economy, sexuality, identity.

true true. but what u are saying is to bring back an era of high tension. from 1947 until 1991. every second of every minute, every hour, every day counted like a year. two superpowers armed with nukes trying to get one over the other. just a touch away from the death of millions of people .although the world now is more divided than ever i will still live in this era since the conflicts are not a large scale issue. we are not talking about the ' surprise freedoms' in latin america and africa. their attempts of western supported civilization has brought down iran and iraq. palestine in turmoil, afghanistan in war. i have lived throught the early post soviet era and i know how it feels but this, this is totally different

نوشتع شده توسط Your Monkey, 11.04.2021 at 04:08

Hes a Putin-Kremlin bot but he must be lowest rank among them since he makes propaganda in dead browser game. However China also has similiar bot regiment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

This explains everything.

نوشتع شده توسط avatar, 10.04.2021 at 16:35

نوشتع شده توسط Skanderbeg, 10.04.2021 at 08:28

نوشتع شده توسط Tribune Aquila, 09.04.2021 at 16:23

I don't care about politics as much anymore, but Russia should take over Eastern Europe and become a much more formidable superpower to counter-act China. Russians have fewer LGBTQ folks, so they would be better equipped to counter-act the ongoing clash of civilizations against the Chinese and such. Better equipped than America

Russia should 'take over' East Europe as in sphere of influence, to be a buffer region between NATO and Russia, not to conquer as that bring more troubles than good (why spend siberian resources on people that hates you, Russia is not communist anymore and doesn't have to give money to be liked, but spend on its own country)

And they should help friends and allies; like Armenia, who lost most of Artsakh after Turkish-Azeri invasion, Serbia who completely lost Serbian Krajina after American-Croatian invasion, and Greece which lost northern parts of Kipros to turkish invasion.

But you are right, Clash of Civilization is real, i forgot the writer's name of the book, i think Hunthington. The world is divided on Western civ, Orthodox Christian civ, Islamic civ and Chinese civ, and people won't help and interract with each other outside their respective groups.

Atleast during Cold War the people were divided on political lines, which are easier to delete or tolerate(just dont talk about it), today its all about 'values', they politicize everything, from religion, family, economy, sexuality, identity.

go fuck yourself

Nice toxicity in Dave's game.

نوشتع شده توسط comradestalin69, 13.04.2021 at 12:58

true true. but what u are saying is to bring back an era of high tension. from 1947 until 1991. every second of every minute, every hour, every day counted like a year. two superpowers armed with nukes trying to get one over the other. just a touch away from the death of millions of people .although the world now is more divided than ever i will still live in this era since the conflicts are not a large scale issue. we are not talking about the ' surprise freedoms' in latin america and africa. their attempts of western supported civilization has brought down iran and iraq. palestine in turmoil, afghanistan in war. i have lived throught the early post soviet era and i know how it feels but this, this is totally different

Well there is no better option than that; we need balance of power like 1815-1914 and 1945-1991. Today we have no balance, so we are closer to war. The line back then was in Berlin, now it is in Baltic-Donbass, which mean the line of conflict is on the border of a superpower (nuclear-armed). Balance can be restored when the line is pushed back to Warsaw or Berlin.

If the line is close to the one geopolitical player, he will feel anxious and might strike first, but also the opponent might feel superior and strike first, thats why it is very dangerous.

Remember 1962 cuban crisis? USA became violent due to being scared of soviet build up and nuke placement in Cuba, because the line was too close to home. Same applies today.

نوشتع شده توسط Skanderbeg, 14.04.2021 at 12:29

نوشتع شده توسط comradestalin69, 13.04.2021 at 12:58

true true. but what u are saying is to bring back an era of high tension. from 1947 until 1991. every second of every minute, every hour, every day counted like a year. two superpowers armed with nukes trying to get one over the other. just a touch away from the death of millions of people .although the world now is more divided than ever i will still live in this era since the conflicts are not a large scale issue. we are not talking about the ' surprise freedoms' in latin america and africa. their attempts of western supported civilization has brought down iran and iraq. palestine in turmoil, afghanistan in war. i have lived throught the early post soviet era and i know how it feels but this, this is totally different

Well there is no better option than that; we need balance of power like 1815-1914 and 1945-1991. Today we have no balance, so we are closer to war. The line back then was in Berlin, now it is in Baltic-Donbass, which mean the line of conflict is on the border of a superpower (nuclear-armed). Balance can be restored when the line is pushed back to Warsaw or Berlin.

If the line is close to the one geopolitical player, he will feel anxious and might strike first, but also the opponent might feel superior and strike first, thats why it is very dangerous.

Remember 1962 cuban crisis? USA became violent due to being scared of soviet build up and nuke placement in Cuba, because the line was too close to home. Same applies today.

the only true moments of peace we ever had was from 1815-1830, 1914-1930 and 1991-1998. if u observe all the peace times comes just after a war. and every war costs more than a million lives. we have more than a dozen nuclear armed countries which could signal the destruction of millions or billions. if we go for war. then what einstein said will be correct " i don't know what weapons will be used in ww3, but i do know that ww4 will be fought using sticks and stones"

And then talking about the anxiousness about a country' motives. china and japan were a threat to each other since the beginning of time. from the ghosts of tsushima to the yi sun-sin and to the ww2 period. they have lived to coexist with the dangers next to them. another example is india and pakistan. we have fought against each other since the beginning of our independence. there are frequent air skirmishes, border attacks and insurgent threats. but we have been able to coexist and deescalate the threat every time. but now the stakes are even higher since both of them have nukes. russia can survive the threats faced by a ukrainian nato. But if we let the russians win. then the next target will be warsaw, then berlin, paris, london and so on. they will never stop their ambitions as long as a soviet loyalist ike putin is on the presidency. we have to keep bold actions. for each country that falls to nationalism or anarchy. our countries will be a step closer towards it, regardless of the cultures, economy and history.

نوشتع شده توسط comradestalin69, 15.04.2021 at 05:36

the only true moments of peace we ever had was from 1815-1830, 1914-1930 and 1991-1998. if u observe all the peace times comes just after a war. and every war costs more than a million lives. we have more than a dozen nuclear armed countries which could signal the destruction of millions or billions. if we go for war. then what einstein said will be correct " i don't know what weapons will be used in ww3, but i do know that ww4 will be fought using sticks and stones"

نوشتع شده توسط comradestalin69, 15.04.2021 at 05:45

And then talking about the anxiousness about a country' motives. china and japan were a threat to each other since the beginning of time. from the ghosts of tsushima to the yi sun-sin and to the ww2 period. they have lived to coexist with the dangers next to them. another example is india and pakistan. we have fought against each other since the beginning of our independence. there are frequent air skirmishes, border attacks and insurgent threats. but we have been able to coexist and deescalate the threat every time. but now the stakes are even higher since both of them have nukes. russia can survive the threats faced by a ukrainian nato. But if we let the russians win. then the next target will be warsaw, then berlin, paris, london and so on. they will never stop their ambitions as long as a soviet loyalist ike putin is on the presidency. we have to keep bold actions. for each country that falls to nationalism or anarchy. our countries will be a step closer towards it, regardless of the cultures, economy and history.

There must be balance of power (great powers), you used good example of Pakistan vs India, they have nukes and now its balanced, but USA-Russia front is not balanced due to US freaking out when USSR tried to place nukes on Cuba, while USA casually placed nukes in Turkey back then, and today casually in Poland, Czechia and Romania.

For example Romania, like France in NATO, was outside command chain in Warsaw Pact, and now when they are in NATO they have US bases and nukes, now they are legitimate target in case of WW3, why do they risk that?

You say Ukraine in NATO is not a problem, but if you let Russia win (but you dont say win where? ww3 or ukraine?) then next target is warsaw, berlin, london. But what about USA? They agreed to end Cold War in 1989 with USSR and when USSR collapsed 2 years later, they became the largest empire on earth; invading nations across the globe, literally everywhere, kidnapping people in americas, africa, europe, asia, and sending them back to black sites.

I don't how can you fear more potential Russia than real USA, it doesn't make sense. To accept current US oppression only because potential future Russia can invade London sounds very pessimistic and defeatist to me.

نقل قول:

You say Ukraine in NATO is not a problem, but if you let Russia win (but you dont say win where? ww3 or ukraine?)

I meant if we let russia get what they want . Then they will win in ukraine

نوشتع شده توسط Skanderbeg, 20.04.2021 at 10:36

نوشتع شده توسط comradestalin69, 15.04.2021 at 05:36

the only true moments of peace we ever had was from 1815-1830, 1914-1930 and 1991-1998. if u observe all the peace times comes just after a war. and every war costs more than a million lives. we have more than a dozen nuclear armed countries which could signal the destruction of millions or billions. if we go for war. then what einstein said will be correct " i don't know what weapons will be used in ww3, but i do know that ww4 will be fought using sticks and stones"

نوشتع شده توسط comradestalin69, 15.04.2021 at 05:45

And then talking about the anxiousness about a country' motives. china and japan were a threat to each other since the beginning of time. from the ghosts of tsushima to the yi sun-sin and to the ww2 period. they have lived to coexist with the dangers next to them. another example is india and pakistan. we have fought against each other since the beginning of our independence. there are frequent air skirmishes, border attacks and insurgent threats. but we have been able to coexist and deescalate the threat every time. but now the stakes are even higher since both of them have nukes. russia can survive the threats faced by a ukrainian nato. But if we let the russians win. then the next target will be warsaw, then berlin, paris, london and so on. they will never stop their ambitions as long as a soviet loyalist ike putin is on the presidency. we have to keep bold actions. for each country that falls to nationalism or anarchy. our countries will be a step closer towards it, regardless of the cultures, economy and history.

There must be balance of power (great powers), you used good example of Pakistan vs India, they have nukes and now its balanced, but USA-Russia front is not balanced due to US freaking out when USSR tried to place nukes on Cuba, while USA casually placed nukes in Turkey back then, and today casually in Poland, Czechia and Romania.

For example Romania, like France in NATO, was outside command chain in Warsaw Pact, and now when they are in NATO they have US bases and nukes, now they are legitimate target in case of WW3, why do they risk that?

You say Ukraine in NATO is not a problem, but if you let Russia win (but you dont say win where? ww3 or ukraine?) then next target is warsaw, berlin, london. But what about USA? They agreed to end Cold War in 1989 with USSR and when USSR collapsed 2 years later, they became the largest empire on earth; invading nations across the globe, literally everywhere, kidnapping people in americas, africa, europe, asia, and sending them back to black sites.

I don't how can you fear more potential Russia than real USA, it doesn't make sense. To accept current US oppression only because potential future Russia can invade London sounds very pessimistic and defeatist to me.

Yes the us did freak out when the soviets placed nukes in cuba and the reason why they casually put nukes in turkey was because they were selfish and never cared about what the ussr wanted. It was all a game of cat and mouse. Each one trying to outsmart the other. Here both us and ussr are cats and mouses in their own fields. The threat of soviet russia was real as they wanted the entire world under their rule. They wanted to unite their people using other nations as demons. And for the matter of pakistan and india, it is not balanced. India has made a retaliatory strike policy for their nukes which means they will only strike back in retaliation. Meanwhile pakistan is different, their country has been through military dictatorships alot so they made a first strike policy, which means they will launch their nukes at any case of war. Secondly Pakistan has also been waging guerrilla warfare inside india by aiding islamic fundamentalists and kashmiris to strike india. We cannot let the russian gain an inch of ground nor advantage over others as it will make them feel more emboldened to strike other targets that are in their interest. Eg baltic nations. Then about the us invading other countries and capturing people. The invasion of iraq was a direct propaganda move by the conservatives in usa. Which means not all of the people supported it as they used the excuse of 9/11 and the proapect of iraq building nukes. The same goes for libya. They have invaded alot of nations as they wanted theri type of democracy in those lands. Which i do not clearly support nor clearly detest. But being a superpower they have to help their allies and their interests to secure more friendships and prove that they will defend you. The reason why romania had allowed nukes to be set up there was due to their fear of russia. They wanted an alliance with usa and they got one. So it is the us's policy to defend their allies.
I would never allow russia to gt what they want in ukraine as it will remind us of adolf hitler and his 'promises'. The appeasement is the most greatest example of what russia is trying to do with the us and the rest of the world

نوشتع شده توسط comradestalin69, 20.04.2021 at 12:51

Yes the us did freak out when the soviets placed nukes in cuba and the reason why they casually put nukes in turkey was because they were selfish and never cared about what the ussr wanted. It was all a game of cat and mouse. Each one trying to outsmart the other. Here both us and ussr are cats and mouses in their own fields. The threat of soviet russia was real as they wanted the entire world under their rule. They wanted to unite their people using other nations as demons. And for the matter of pakistan and india, it is not balanced. India has made a retaliatory strike policy for their nukes which means they will only strike back in retaliation. Meanwhile pakistan is different, their country has been through military dictatorships alot so they made a first strike policy, which means they will launch their nukes at any case of war. Secondly Pakistan has also been waging guerrilla warfare inside india by aiding islamic fundamentalists and kashmiris to strike india. We cannot let the russian gain an inch of ground nor advantage over others as it will make them feel more emboldened to strike other targets that are in their interest. Eg baltic nations. Then about the us invading other countries and capturing people. The invasion of iraq was a direct propaganda move by the conservatives in usa. Which means not all of the people supported it as they used the excuse of 9/11 and the proapect of iraq building nukes. The same goes for libya. They have invaded alot of nations as they wanted theri type of democracy in those lands. Which i do not clearly support nor clearly detest. But being a superpower they have to help their allies and their interests to secure more friendships and prove that they will defend you. The reason why romania had allowed nukes to be set up there was due to their fear of russia. They wanted an alliance with usa and they got one. So it is the us's policy to defend their allies.
I would never allow russia to gt what they want in ukraine as it will remind us of adolf hitler and his 'promises'. The appeasement is the most greatest example of what russia is trying to do with the us and the rest of the world

1) I acknowledge your comment about Pakistan-India. I support India in that conflict because from my view, i see Pakistan provoking India, i need more information to see from pakistani side proving India provokes them. I also see Kashmir as Indian territory, but i don't have complete picture about that place. Although, i assume that after independence, the territory belongs to India as it was before colonization.

2) In US-Russia conflict, you are choosing sides. You are choosing one empire over another. I am trying to not choose a side, but if others choose, then i must choose as well so i don't lag behind which eventually can backfire if enemy empire win.

What gives USA more right in Iraq than Russia in Ukraine? Or USA in Libya than Russia in Baltic? How can one empire's meddling be wanted and the other detested, unless you are choosing side?

3) Using Hitler as example doesn't suit well in an argument and debate (godwin law), you can't compare something so evil with a modern country, because not only you paint that country black, but you also water down real crimes against humanity perpetrated by hitler.