Germany Says 'Nein' On Tanks At Allies' Big Ramstein Meeting

Since when did this have anything to do with "Russia"....evil or otherwise....this is just about Putin!
As for the rest....well.....I'm sure you'll explain what it has to do with the invasion of Ukraine?

you missed the ahahaha....? I feel let down

 

I'm not **** consumer as you or useful idiots, who name themselves "free thinkers" are, and of course I checked real Polityka website, and here are real journal illustrations:

https://www.polityka.pl/TygodnikPolityka/wbiezacymnumerze/numery

You will not find yours there, yours come from some Russian shithole.

But of course the fact, that you have been fooled, or you try to fool idiots here, will change nothing in your attitude, and you will continue to copy/paste this **** here?

 

Ahahaha .... You forgot to say "we freed the Iraqis from Saddam and Libya from Gaddafi." But do not forget to add that at the same time, two million Iraqi civilians were killed (of which 500 thousand children), and Libya from the richest country in Africa with the richest population in Africa was turned into a massacre.

 

This is directly related to Ukraine.
I am pointing out to you the fact that in international politics, as well as in economics, all the talk about "democracy", "Western values", "LGBT freedom" and other such cries is all just to fool their population.
Comrade Lenin very wisely remarked - "People have always been and always will be stupid victims of deceit and self-deception in politics until they learn to look for the interests of certain classes behind any moral, religious, political, social phrases, statements, promises."

I hope this video compensates for the lack of "Ahahaha..." in the comment for you.

 

sure if that's what it was supposed to be....okay...from what I read it was a mish mash of odd little factoids....anyway.

well....again its all feeding into that narrative Putin is trying to make within the casus belli....if you're alluding to that? If so then you're sort of getting there but not quite. What Putin is actually doing is trying to formulate his view as to what a "Russian civilisation" is and then offering a counterpoint to (in his view of) a European democracy and it's spread and how it is influencing Ukraine....I mean that's the bones of it. He needs to establish the bona fides of what constitutes the fundamentals of his view of "civilisation" i.e. a Russian civilisation (and thus by default that Ukrainian civilisation) in order to set it against that which he wants to destroy...being the insidious encroachment of European influence and liberalism into the Russian sphere of civilisation. Read your boss' writings its all there.

...from a "western" perspective what's the ending of that sentence?

 

But if Putin is struggling to establish a casus causus in terms of point-counterpoint then couldn't it be said that the score is 2-LOVE? And if the bones of it is so obvious, can Captain Kirk be far behind? And if a European Democracy is so unique, then can it afford to incorporate elements of something as radical as Communism... or even an American liberal Democrat? But if he wants to destroy, why then does he look to the future at all? And if "insidious encroachment" is the real THREAT... cannot he just call an exterminator?

 

...oddly enough Mr. Putin as rather silent on that...
He's all wrapped up in his strange view of world history and trying to rally little elements of the past into some kind of justification for his invasion but fails to say where he's actually going with it. The fact that the very people he thought would rise up and agree with him have kicked him solidly in the nuts and turned his liberating forces of "civilisation" into fertiliser and rust must be annoying for him.....anyway..... it's fun watching the bots trying to make sense of it!

 

It opens the door to WW3, no need to mince words. It's absolute insanity the risks that we're taking for Ukrainian sovereignty, meanwhile the administration could give a rat's ass about the US borders.

 

Hi, say we call it a day in Ukraine and allow Putin to disengage and there is a compromise settlement between Ukraine and Putin (lets forget for a moment what that may look like) do you think that is an end to it? Bearing in mind that sectoral sanction etc will be in place for years to come against Russia; forget the message it sends to other countries but do you think that by calling it a day in Ukraine that Putin will change his ambitions?

 

Of course, none or next to none reaction to Russia aggression against Georgia in 2008. and Ukraine in 2014. put an end to Russia aggressive plans. It works "great", let's keep this path.

 

I shall repeat: That's YOUR problem in Europe. If the Russians once again bring the iron curtain over Europe, then maybe that's something you're going to have to live with. Because no, it won't end with this skirmish with Putin. Putin's successor will likely attempt to expand Russia's borders again. I wouldn't have signed the deal to give Ukraine assurances, i wouldn't have given those 'commitments'. Neo-cons did, partially because they owe it to Boeing's contractors. And partially because we have the misguided idea that 'well, we intervened in WWI and came out alright, intervened in WWII and came out alright, so surely this is the go-to-strategy!'

Which is all well and good until it doesn't go alright and unlike those drunkard gamblers(who likely have their own emergency plans for when SHTF), I'm not going to mess with that. Again, your problem. You figure it out.

 

That is an absolute lie. In 8 years from 2003 to 2011, between 275,000 and 306,000 Iraqi civilians killed by direct violence.

Russia has cause more than that in less than a year in Ukraine.

 

Everyone knows what Putin is doing. He is trying to isolate the Russian population from learning about true democracy and many of the freedoms the rest of the world gets to enjoy.

 

I'm totally fine with Russia never trading with the west again. Go build a bridge to north Korea.

 

And how then does the US craft a long term strategic plan with its current allies and future partners on that basis? How does it re-define its diplomatic and economic and indeed its military relationship with the world that it would have to de-couple itself from? A simple example, if certain Russian military units from Ukraine (now battle tested) were to re-appear in Syria and threaten Israel would the US in your view be right to de-couple itself from Israel and its obligations in that theater? An emboldened and militarily stronger Syria could cause Israel to assume a nuclear first strike posture? China would presumably see a US withdrawal of support from an ally as a signal and assume that Taiwan is now back on the table, how would a US administration craft a policy on Taiwan in that scenario - remembering that the final go order for the Ukraine invasion was given within hours of the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan!

I have a feeling that your though process is aligned with the appeasement policy that Trump was trying to sell to Americans; in that Putin and Putin's styled autocracy is preferable to a US democracy (Trump's swamp of corruption narrative etc). The problem with that approach is that it assumes the US shrinking into itself and hoping people will take it seriously. You've just seen the diplomatic consequences of that sort of action (although in a very small scale) with the delayed reaction from the Germany Chancellor and his Minister of Defense; shying away from supporting an ally with Tanks. Putin only understands the language of hard power. For you to think that a shrinking US would somehow make the US...I'm not sure again what your though is for this appeasement...maybe you think the US will be safer or more prosperous that somehow America will re-gain its economic might...I don't know...but whatever you're thinking, it won't happen. The US by isolating itself only makes itself weaker.

 

Write correctly. The word "allow" is not appropriate in this context.
The Russians do whatever they want. And as they see fit. They do not care about the opinion of the West. So leave your inappropriate mentoring tone.
You can express your thoughts directly - the Russians will solve all issues with Ukraine as they want. My guess is that the Russians will keep the state of Ukraine greatly reduced in size and landlocked. And this impoverished state will have an overly pro-Russian government. Simply because in the economic sense, the banal survival of the population will depend on the Russians.
Further, the Russians, and it seems obvious to me, will begin to push back NATO's borders to the state of 1991.

 

Yes. Propaganda in Russia LGBT is prohibited. And this is good.

 

Ahahaha.....You don't even need to build a bridge. Mexico itself comes to you.

 

??...okay but within that context of the comment I made to the other lad the alternative would be a Russia surrender......I don't think you read the comment it right?

 

It's not appeasement, it's prioritization. Europe is not our priority, Africa is not our priority. And yes, that might allow some colonalist power to make it their priority. I am perfectly fine with that. It's absolutely brilliant for us that the Russians are in Ukraine. The more material resources they expend in a conflict, and not aimed at my country's territories and our allies, the better.

I do not foresee a Russian-Israeli conflict, I don't see any reason for there to be one. But even if there were one, yes I'll remain consistent: It's Israel's problem. Do you see me rushing in for the Israeli-Palestinian spat? At least in WWI, there was the credible threat of German encroachment into the Mexican territory, therefore testing the Monroe Doctrine.

We don't have an interest in Europe, we don't have any interest in Taiwan. Now, if we were to join the European Union or if Taiwan were to be a US State, then there'd be some actual meaning involved. But since neither is the present case, a third war on behalf of Europe is laughable.

Only America's existence is prevalent. There is no international community, and said community itself seemingly is but a one sided street. Europeans got themselves into the conflict, now they must get themselves out of it.

 

...so Putin was wrong then...Russia and Ukraine are not one people tied in a common history and will not forge a future in partnership??


So has Putin just been spouting rubbish then in your view??.

So after spending 5,000 words on establishing the common case in history and language and culture and religion for Russia and Ukraine as equal partners it was all for nothing....you mentioned "the Russians will solve all issues with Ukraine as they want." This is not what Putin said! How is this a partnership?

It's all fantasy isn't it....your kleptomanic just wanted Ukraine...why....because he did....blood and treasure the mark of a maniac.

Thanks mate I think we're finished here now aren't we?

 

yes you do its called NATO

 

well...you see a Syrian one though and with full Russian military support...likewise Iran now has a strong military relationship with Russia, which based on your though process, will allow Iran to enhance its nuclear program to counter the Israeli nuclear threat. Which since the US has severed links in the region will be free from any US counter threat and will have the full support of Russia. Russia will want to not only maintain their middle-east influence and keep their warm water ports in the Med but also want to gain access to ports in the Gulf thereby enhancing the Iranian ability to directly threatening Gulf oil exports...and and and....So how does the US re-craft its posture?

 

You think the Russians are going to encourage the Syrians to expand their war efforts, when they aren't even done their own civil war to retain power in their country? I find that highly unlikely. I also think we're reaching a point where nuclear non-proliferation is becoming a zero-sum game. We cannot realistically prevent the Iranians from obtaining a weapon if they want one bad enough. Even if we resort to military force, that's only going to accelerate the process.

We should have thought of that before selling the nuclear blueprint to the French, before the Soviets had gotten the Operation Manhattan blueprints. And even the Israeli-US relationship isn't anywhere near as 'strong' as people would think. Israel does her own thing, on her own accord and this through several American administrations. Simply, the entire middle east is a theocracy, and it's a matter of which one is less theocratic than the other.

And even then, should we want to sully our Western thought by supporting any theocracy?(see: The travesty of Yemen.). Indeed, the failures of the Middle East expand to the rest of the world: US support, far from being productive has failed the American Mission.

So it's not a matter of how we do it, it's that we decided to do it. We may perhaps use our diplomats and engage in high-level diplomacy to be a mediator. But there is no value in military assistance be it to Europe, or Africa or Eurasia. The problems in these trouble areas of the world have lasted centuries, if not eons. And it is up to them, to figure it out.

 

that's the point...we don't know but the point being if there is no longer a policy towards the middle-east from the US it makes it much easier for the middle east protagonists to pursue a policy of expansion. The US holds the balance of power in that region but assuming your posture or lack thereof there is now no stability and allows room for lets say Russia or China or Pakistan or Iran or whoever to threaten the oil supplies to the world....you posture allows this and that threatens the global supply chains and directly the US. Since the US under your assumptions has de-coupled from its treaty and diplomatic military obligations its merely an observer of events and subject to the ramifications of whichever power takes over.

This is exactly the arguments proposed by opponents of BREXIT...nations are stronger in alliances than outside looking in.

So how does the US re-craft its posture?