F-22Raptor
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 16,980
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments
- Thread starter T-SaGe
- Start date
- Status
Vergennes
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 8,576
- Reaction score
- 61
- Country
- Location
Russia continues to lose high ranking officers at an incredible rate yet nobody seems to worry. @F-22Raptor
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Me obsessed with Mearsheimer? That is a good laugh.
It is YOU and many others who are obsessed with Mearsheimer regarding his thesis of great power geopolitics.
In my post...
Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments
Is there an actual counter attack or is this fluff? https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-mounts-counteroffensive-to-drive-russians-back-from-kyiv-key-cities-11647428858 Recent article ~ 45 minutes ago
defence.pk
I did exactly what you and others wanted, which was to put the US and Russia under what Mearsheimer wanted: amoral great powers responding to a perceived national security threat. I said 'amoral', not 'immoral', look up the difference.
The core of your defense of Russia is that it is the US/NATO who are at fault for supposedly offering NATO membership to Ukraine, of which, Poutine PERCEIVED that POTENTIAL membership to be a national security threat. I have seen versions of how Poutine was 'cornered' or was not offered an 'exit' and so on. So I did EXACTLY what you guys wanted. I put the US squarely under Mearsheimer's argument.
Situation 1:
The US is a great power and is the leader of the democracy bloc.
Cuba is a neighbor and is a member of the communist bloc, not of the Warsaw Pact in particular, but of the communist bloc in general.
Cuba hosts nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union, the leader of the communist bloc.
The US responded with a blockade of Cuba.
The US negotiated with the Soviet Union for a successful settlement.
The Soviet Union withdraw the nuclear weapons.
The US ended the blockade.
Situation 2:
Russia was once a Soviet state, leader of the Soviet Union, and leader of the communist bloc.
Russia today is a great power and is no member or leader of any bloc.
Ukraine was once a Soviet state, not an allied country but a member of the Soviet Union who had full jurisdiction over Ukraine.
Ukraine today is an independent country next to Russia and is no member of any bloc.
Ukraine expressed an interest in being a member of the democratic bloc and specifically NATO but no actual admittance occurred.
Russia responded by invading Ukraine.
Do you see any moral attribution to either great powers above? Do you deny the events listed? The issue here is responses to a PERCEIVED national security threat, WHEN did each great power responded, and HOW did each great power responded. In other words, I entered YOUR playhouse, opened up your rules, and you ran away.
The reason you, and anyone else who subscribed to Mearsheimer's thesis, ran away from the situations I listed above is because you guys know there is a point where the response breached a reasonable line, and that there is no defense of what Poutine did. Everyone love to bring up Cuba to show how the US reacted which would somehow absolved Russia of the crime of invading Ukraine. So I obliged all of you. And y'all scattered.
Viet
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2012
- Messages
- 29,950
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Too bad that you cheer him. Putin is a Psychopath, people say Russia is an asian country without Ukraine, like China or Turkey. He is angry he wants to be part of Europe.
dBSPL
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2018
- Messages
- 7,661
- Reaction score
- 28
- Country
- Location
Not only Uzbekistan, but also many Asian countries are in favor of Ukraine's territorial integrity (principle of immutability of borders). For example, Azerbaijan signed a security agreement with Russia in February. But they are also in favor of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
The right of peoples to self-determination is another. Russia is trying to invade whole country directly, without any legal basis, and it has nothing can be defend in terms of international law.
Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
Msta-S self propelled howitzers
Foinikas
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2021
- Messages
- 12,709
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Habibi when did I run away? You guys keep talking about evil Russia invading a free and sovereign nation and caling Putin an evil dictator. However,when USA and its allies invading countries far away or had regime changes,you say it was different.Me obsessed with Mearsheimer? That is a good laugh.
It is YOU and many others who are obsessed with Mearsheimer regarding his thesis of great power geopolitics.
In my post...
Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments
Is there an actual counter attack or is this fluff? https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-mounts-counteroffensive-to-drive-russians-back-from-kyiv-key-cities-11647428858 Recent article ~ 45 minutes agodefence.pk
I did exactly what you and others wanted, which was to put the US and Russia under what Mearsheimer wanted: amoral great powers responding to a perceived national security threat. I said 'amoral', not 'immoral', look up the difference.
The core of your defense of Russia is that it is the US/NATO who are at fault for supposedly offering NATO membership to Ukraine, of which, Poutine PERCEIVED that POTENTIAL membership to be a national security threat. I have seen versions of how Poutine was 'cornered' or was not offered an 'exit' and so on. So I did EXACTLY what you guys wanted. I put the US squarely under Mearsheimer's argument.
Situation 1:
The US is a great power and is the leader of the democracy bloc.Cuba is a neighbor and is a member of the communist bloc, not of the Warsaw Pact in particular, but of the communist bloc in general.Cuba hosts nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union, the leader of the communist bloc.The US responded with a blockade of Cuba.The US negotiated with the Soviet Union for a successful settlement.The Soviet Union withdraw the nuclear weapons.The US ended the blockade.
Situation 2:
Russia was once a Soviet state, leader of the Soviet Union, and leader of the communist bloc.Russia today is a great power and is no member or leader of any bloc.Ukraine was once a Soviet state, not an allied country but a member of the Soviet Union who had full jurisdiction over Ukraine.Ukraine today is an independent country next to Russia and is no member of any bloc.Ukraine expressed an interest in being a member of the democratic bloc and specifically NATO but no actual admittance occurred.Russia responded by invading Ukraine.
Do you see any moral attribution to either great powers above? Do you deny the events listed? The issue here is responses to a PERCEIVED national security threat, WHEN did each great power responded, and HOW did each great power responded. In other words, I entered YOUR playhouse, opened up your rules, and you ran away.
The reason you, and anyone else who subscribed to Mearsheimer's thesis, ran away from the situations I listed above is because you guys know there is a point where the response breached a reasonable line, and that there is no defense of what Poutine did. Everyone love to bring up Cuba to show how the US reacted which would somehow absolved Russia of the crime of invading Ukraine. So I obliged all of you. And y'all scattered.
What I've been telling you is that the U.S. and Britain as well as some countries of Western Europe,are the last ones to point the finger and talk about "war crimes" and invasions. And still you go on about Mersheimer. I'm not the one who mentioned him and keep talking about him. Others warned about this foreign policy as well.
Get over with it. Russia is not the USSR anymore. You remind me of those hillbillies who're sitting on an armschair watching TV with a beer in hand going like "I ain't gonna let these commies come take mah freedom! We should go get them russkies first!"
dBSPL
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2018
- Messages
- 7,661
- Reaction score
- 28
- Country
- Location
Turkey is the party responsible for the implementation of the strait regime, we did not create this regime ourselves. The guarantors of this contract are about 10 signatory countries, including Japan and Russia. So if Russia tries to break this regime, it will put itself in trouble. Montreux is important for Russia's security, if it rejects this convention as a guarantor country, the consequences will be severe for Russia.Will Turkey let these ships in? Technically - the home port for these ships is not in the black sea ?!
Russian warships pass through Japan strait, possibly on way to Ukraine
Russia could be sending reinforcements to Ukraine, Japan's defense ministry said after spotting four amphibious warships in the Tsugaru Strait (pictured). Russia has lost thousands of vehicles.www.dailymail.co.uk
Yesterday, Lavrov openly praised Turkey's stance and talked about the importance of the Montreux convention for Russia. In short, I don't think they will do anything to harm this agreement.
dBSPL
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2018
- Messages
- 7,661
- Reaction score
- 28
- Country
- Location
They started to leave Poland alone in just 1 month. Poland could be screwed up. If Russia creates the regime it wants in Ukraine, at least 4-5 million Ukrainians will migrate to Poland permanently.
Currently, the number of refugees left Ukraine around 4 million.
Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
Zala drone footage
Apollon
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2021
- Messages
- 3,737
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
What mega buainess deals? Deals are made between two partners. Russia is so reduced that China gets it basicly for free.
- Status
Similar threads
