Originally Posted by Lowslung

Have you ever been to the Baltics? Poland? Anywhere in the former Soviet empire? Do you understand that the reason there are large numbers of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in many of those places is because of deliberate and concerted Soviet policies that encouraged ethnically Russian men to take local wives & have children in these countries in an attempt to Russianize the population? These policies were largely reviled by the occupied populations. And make no mistake, an occupation is exactly what Soviet rule was to these people. In many cases, the Russian overlords simply moved into the very same buildings, offices, and torture chambers that their Nazi predecessors had been in during the war. Frankly, I couldn't care less what "promises" were made to Gorbachev by the west. The Soviet experiment failed & the Russians were in no position to be making demands or declaring ultimatums. Eastern Europe found itself free of the shackles of occupation and understandably desired to guarantee their newfound freedom by joining NATO. They are some of the best allies we have. The populations are happy when they encounter American service personnel, they meet their defense spending goals, and they don't balk at shouldering their share of the work when they deploy with us, which they are generally happy to do. It is exciting to be in places like Prague, Warsaw, Riga, and Bratislava and see people who don't take western freedoms for granted. If the Russians were truly concerned about buffering their own borders against perceived Western aggression, they would've offered their former subjects a better deal than NATO could. They didn't & they won't because in Russian eyes the only purpose that those populations ever served was to act as a human speed bump when they went to war. It's hard to think of better allies than the Eastern Europeans in today's world & that's one of the places on the planet that we absolutely should care about defending. The Russians have no plans to stop at Ukraine, but that particular battlefield represents a unique opportunity in that by helping the Ukrainians fight, we can halt Russian expansionism before it reaches NATO's borders and turns into a hot war that ruins Europe or worse.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

Yes.

There are lot of Mexicans in the US, but that would not justify a Mexican invasion of the US.

Originally Posted by Excargodog

Well, AT THE TIME, they didn't HAVE 6000 nuclear warheads. But for all those trying to justify further intervention in Europe based upon the "sunk expense" of our casualties in Europe and WWI and WWII it is useful to remind everyone that the GERMANS were our enemies in both those wars and the Russians were our allies in both those wars and the point of my posting was that Russian paranoia is at least somewhat understandable since they lost an order of magnitude more dead in both those wars than we did. As I've said, they were invaded by the French once losing 200,000 people (from a population at the time of only 25 million), by Germany in WWI losing about 3 million people from a population of ~160 million, and by the Germans again in WWII losing about 27 million people from a population of ~172 million.

Considering the US psyche is still scarred from ~50,000 deaths in Vietnam (out of a 1970 population of 203 million) and ~3000 on 911 (out of a US population of ~300 million) it is perhaps not surprising the country of Russia as a whole is paranoid about potentially hostile troops on their borders. Given their history, it is not surprising they are as b@t$hit crazy/paranoid as they are.

Now you don't have to believe that justifies their actions but if you don't believe that plays a part in their actions, you are simply ignorant.


https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/re...oia-about-west

Worth the read for those desiring to not share Hub's ignorance.

Originally Posted by ReluctantEskimo

Mexico also has a "historical" claim on the Southwest United States.

I'd love to hear excargodog pontifcate on why that's completely different.

Originally Posted by Excargodog

We couldn't pacify the Taliban in 20 years.

Originally Posted by ReluctantEskimo

It's clear that the GWB's "war on terror" has affected some veterans to the point of not being able to see the difference between self-indulgent missions like Iraq and Afghanistan, versus containment of a real threat to global peace.

Originally Posted by ReluctantEskimo

It's clear that the GWB's "war on terror" has affected some veterans to the point of not being able to see the difference between self-indulgent missions like Iraq and Afghanistan, versus containment of a real threat to global peace.

Originally Posted by Hubcapped

thank you for not answering the question….

I’ll ask again and try and answer the specific question, how do you invade a country that has 6000 nuclear weapons? That is the pertinent question of today. it truly is times like these when you defend Russian aggression against Ukraine, as having anything to do with actual security that I feel that you are a Russian propagandist.

How do you attack a nation that has 6000 nuclear weapons?

Furthermore, if NATO was such a threat, why has Russia pulled almost all of its troops off of NATO borders?

Why can’t you admit that this is about wheat and a deep water port…… what is your angle?

try and at least answer one of the three questions or just do your thing like you always do. Hide

I can understand your position of not wanting the US to be involved in European politics, though I disagree with that completely, but to say that Russia is somehow justified to invade Ukraine is so ass backwards, I genuinely wonder if you are experiencing cognitive decline

Originally Posted by Excargodog

Only if it goes nuclear.

Originally Posted by Excargodog

Sorry Hub, but you are simply ignorant. or intentionally misleading.

Nowhere have I said that I DEFEND Russian aggression. What I said is that Russians are paranoid about potential enemies on their borders. It ain't the same thing. It's like if I say that dog might bite you because it is rabid. That is neither an indorsement of that particular dog or rabies, just a statement of fact.

How do you attack a nation with 6000 nuclear weapons? Lots of ways. We had about that many weapons on 911. The issue is how do you attack them without triggering a nuclear war. I'm sure NATO is quite concerned about that - certainly Germany is.

As for Russian troop concentrations at NATO borders, the Estonians disagree with your assertion:



As for a deep water port - or rather a WARM water port, Russia had Sevastopol before this invasion. And Russia is very much self sufficient in wheat, in fact exporting about $9 billion worth a year although I imagine the damage done to the Ukraine probably has significantly increased the money and influence Russia gets from their wheat surplus.



So basically, you continue to not know what you are talking about. Probably you ought to stick to the ad hominem attacks. You won't win many debates like that but at least you don't show your ignorance as much when you don't put up these ridiculous assertions.