UA-RU | May 1st-20th | DISCUSSIONS

[william]

I am actually good with calling for the USA withdrawal from NATO. The post WWII era was over in 1991.
USA sharing an ocean with Europe may be nice, but USA also shares the Pacific Ocean with Asia.

Europe needs to decide its defense future, not as a vassal to either the USA or the former USSR (Russia).
The population of Western Europe alone (197,301,388) is larger than Russia's, and the population of Europe (without Russia) is 602,433,908 - almost double the USA's population.
The population of Europe (without Russia and the UK) is 533,883,731.
Shouldn't nearly half a billion people be responsible for their own defense and deciding their own fate?
Nearly half a billion adults should be the ones making the calls about how to defend themselves, not someone living on a totally different continent.

Let's be honest. The people in London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, are not going to be worrying about WWIII if the USA and Communist Cuba get into a war. That would be an "Americas" problem, as it should be. Not an "Atlantic" problem and not a "European" problem.

The post-WWII creation of NATO in 1949 (73 years ago) certainly does not take into consideration the changes in the world in the 21st century. If we were to objectively reflect on the massive changes in the world in 73 years, it would be staggering.

If we hear ANYTHING productive on Monday, May 9, let's hope that we hear that European nation leaders will take the LEAD in the European continent's security and defense, not depending on either USA or Russia to make those decisions for them.

Let's be honest. The people in London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, are not going to be worrying about WWIII if the USA and Communist Cuba get into a war. That would be an "Americas" problem,
I disagree with this statement. Here is a list of Nato and allied countries that fought alongside the US after 9/11.

Countries Participating In the War in Afghanistan

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 set into motion a response from the United States and eventually a range of coalition allies that coalesced nearly a month later when the UK under the le…

foreignpolicyreport.com

 

[william]

https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/05/05/hunting-fascism-in-ukraine-you-overlooked-fascism-in-russia/

 

[Araxen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1523034040835526657

 

[ZedBoy]

sure but what can you buy with all that money? that is the problem in the future, like it was under soviet times.

With the money I made off my trade, I can last 4 more years without having to work a day of those 4 1/2** years (Which I'm not going to do, and that's with blowing the same amount of money I currently blow including a new car). I am going to keep working though so I can expand my wealth via compound interest, and think about that...that was a profit of 62%. You can do the math, it's no small money. You buy the foreign currency, then you transfer it back to your native currency and just live and pass down generational wealth.

 

[SamHoarderBridges]

With the money I made off my trade, I can last 4 more years without having to work a day of those 4 1/2** years (Which I'm not going to do, and that's with blowing the same amount of money I currently blow including a new car). I am going to keep working though so I can expand my wealth via compound interest, and think about that...that was a profit of 62%. You can do the math, it's no small money. You buy the foreign currency, then you transfer it back to your native currency and just live and pass down generational wealth.

It's like a Ponzi scheme: Geocurrency edition.

 

[ZedBoy]

It's like a Ponzi scheme: Geocurrency edition.

What buying ruble when it's down and selling it because you knew the reaction from sanctions was way too hard?

That is a textbook definition of any market, typically the bad news causes a bad reaction, and the good news doesn't cause enough of a good reaction or an over-exaggeration?

"An overreaction in financial markets is when securities become excessively overbought or oversold due to psychological reasons rather than fundamentals."- https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/overreaction.asp

 

[King Crab]

Are their any new updates on the actual war on the ground or someone care to recap gains / losses each side. It seems Russia is solidifying the gains they have made and won't be dislodged any time soon going so far as to install puppet police in some areas. There is so much news on actual Ukrainian strikes on specific targets obviously to keep morale afloat but what about the actual objectives.

 

[RiffRaff]

I wouldn’t assume Ukraine or the United States have been entirely honest either… a major part of war is deception. It’s a big mistake to assume one side is being consistently truthful. Know thine enemy…

Except Russia explicitly violated a treaty they signed with Ukraine guaranteeing their borders as they existed after the breakup of the Soviet Union. They have now violated that treaty twice. Why should we trust them with any negotiated end to their invasion?

 

[RiffRaff]

This is just conjecture… I would bet at least a movie ticket to Dr Strange on the fact the DEFCON staff shows no current evidence to support this line of thought… BUT… i would bet it’s the other way around…I wouldn’t be surprised if NATO is quietly planning a counter-attack on targets within Russia, likely for later this summer. Russia has squeezed the hell out of Europe by turning off the gas…in the semi-near term that sounds like a pretty big existential threat to that part of NATO if you ask me…

Edit - An article supporting how vulnerable Europe really is without Russian fuel - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ecome-so-dependent-on-putin-for-gas-quicktake

It would be against NATO's charter to launch an attack on Russia without being attacked first.

 

[RiffRaff]

My stance has always been that Russia won’t use nukes. I never mentioned nukes. I am also not talking about nukes. I sure hope I am right, but a limited conventional counter-attack by NATO against Russia solely for the goal of further embarrassment doesn’t warrant a nuclear response as much as we might think so. The likely scenario is we would hit supply lines, not military bases or other targets that would directly cause casualties.

Any direct conventional military conflict between NATO and Russia is almost guaranteed to go nuclear. Not 100%, but extremely likely.

 

[RiffRaff]

What out of this world drug are Russian offcials taking to make up such horse shit. I mean they must be really smoking some serious stuff to come up with these total brainless crackpot accusations.

Every war needs an enemy. Look at the so-called "war on terror." 20 years of war in third-world countries that have no possible methods of striking the United States because the US government convinced a huge percentage of the American population that "Muslim = terrorist."

By making Poland the enemy, Russia is creating a scapegoat to justify their war effort.

 

[RiffRaff]

With respect, to the creative mind, options are never limited.
We need to think WAY outside the traditional boundaries of conventional, insurgent, and thermonuclear war.

This is true. Imagine a Jericho situation where Russia manages to smuggle a dozen nuclear weapons into the United States and detonate them inside the 12 largest US cities, making it look like a terrorist attack. With no missile launches to track origins, there would be no immediate nuclear retaliation, and the US would be crippled economically and psychologically at that point. Russia would be free to use those first few days of chaos to pretty much do whatever they wanted to do.

Also imagine a well-executed cyber attack that destroys the US power grid. If it can't be traced back to Russia with 100% certainty, who do we retaliate against?

 

[King Crab]

Don't we have equivalent MAD cyberattacks we could return to Russia if they did that in regards to our power grid or food chain. It seems we are the only ones so dreadfully vulnerable to these attacks.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

Every war needs an enemy. Look at the so-called "war on terror." 20 years of war in third-world countries that have no possible methods of striking the United States because the US government convinced a huge percentage of the American population that "Muslim = terrorist."

By making Poland the enemy, Russia is creating a scapegoat to justify their war effort.

There where truly bad men that needed to be taken out. They may not have had the military means to hurt us at home but letting them go uncheck would of been bad and evuatuly they would have again.

Could you imagine how much more advanced terrorist and terrorist states would be if we didn't kill them off for the past 20 years? Relating the middle east and the terror organizations to Poland/Russia is kinda low insulting blow.

Sure how we went about it in convincing people could of been different. But I wouldn't change anything we did in the middle east expect for the nation building. Nation buildings was are only mistake.

 

[RiffRaff]

Could you imagine how much more advanced terrorist and terrorist states would be if we didn't kill them off for the past 20 years? Relating the middle east and the terror organizations to Poland/Russia is kinda low insulting blow.

They didn't need citizen support to carry out drone strikes killing top terrorist leaders. Those operations could have been conducted covertly with the same benefits. However, they did need support to send troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, despite neither country having anything to do with 9/11. THAT was propaganda on the same level as Russia and Poland.

 

[william]

It would be against NATO's charter to launch an attack on Russia without being attacked first.

That is true but I wouldn't put it past the possibility of the serious war hawks to create a false flag to justify an intervention. Hopefully there are enough level headed people in power to not allow anything like this.

 

[bartok]

What out of this world drug are Russian offcials taking to make up such horse shit. I mean they must be really smoking some serious stuff to come up with these total brainless crackpot accusations.

Yes, but the real meaning of Medvedev speach is that Russia is expecting a Polish intervention in Ukraine and he's preparing the ground for a response.

 

[Obreid]

There where truly bad men that needed to be taken out. They may not have had the military means to hurt us at home but letting them go uncheck would of been bad and evuatuly they would have again.

Could you imagine how much more advanced terrorist and terrorist states would be if we didn't kill them off for the past 20 years? Relating the middle east and the terror organizations to Poland/Russia is kinda low insulting blow.

Sure how we went about it in convincing people could of been different. But I wouldn't change anything we did in the middle east expect for the nation building. Nation buildings was are only mistake.

Imagine if we had used all that money to build up even more tier one teams and the intelligence capabilities even more that we did?
Recruited more spies and done another dozen things to fan out and target those perpetrators and supporters of terrorism.
I’m not attacking you specifically DN. But what if we had sent the message to these groups and men specifically that were not going to attack these nations you hide in. We’re just going to hunt you down and double-tap you.

It’s just a thought.
I do understand why the decision was made for nation building. The intent was to stabilizing those nations so they would not be a recruitment center for terrorist.

I mention this one not because I supported Trump. But one of the most productive things we did during the whole 20 years was catching Qasem Soleimani in the opening and killing him.

 

[william]

This is true. Imagine a Jericho situation where Russia manages to smuggle a dozen nuclear weapons into the United States and detonate them inside the 12 largest US cities, making it look like a terrorist attack. With no missile launches to track origins, there would be no immediate nuclear retaliation, and the US would be crippled economically and psychologically at that point. Russia would be free to use those first few days of chaos to pretty much do whatever they wanted to do.

Also imagine a well-executed cyber attack that destroys the US power grid. If it can't be traced back to Russia with 100% certainty, who do we retaliate against?

That is not hard to imagine. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/blackout-hits-northeast-united-states
" An investigation by a joint U.S.-Canada task force traced the problem back to an Ohio company, FirstEnergy Corporation. When the company’s EastLake plant shut down unexpectedly after overgrown trees came into contact with a power line, it triggered a series of problems that led to a chain reaction of outages."
Rumor has it, it was squirrels in the tree limbs that caused them to come into contact with a power line.
As a side note: The birth rate went up 9 months after this incident.

 

[Obreid]

Yes, but the real meaning of Medvedev speach is that Russia is expecting a Polish intervention in Ukraine and he's preparing the ground for a response.

I suppose Romania is going to try and seize parts of Moldavia as well.
Maybe Russia believes that because Russian polemist have been telling them that for years.