(02-28-2022, 08:54 AM)Jag88 Wrote: [ -> ](02-28-2022, 08:00 AM)NH3 Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.instagram.com/reel/CadV9MYlm..._copy_link
He is ready for war.
NH3...
Highway to the danger zone.
(02-28-2022, 12:03 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ](02-28-2022, 10:52 AM)NH3 Wrote: [ -> ]https://igvofficial.com/anonymous-hack-r...s-ukraine/
The Russian Hackers got Hacked, let the truth be known.
Time Will Tell.
NH3...
You mean the CIAnonymous?
(03-01-2022, 01:24 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Honestly, yes I do. Unlike you and me, Putin thinks differently. We allow checks and balances within our system to keep maniacs from causing international crisis'. Russia does not. Putin surrounds himself with "yes men" and never hears that he is wrong in any way. This can lead very powerful men to believe they are invincible. He will do anything not to appear weak. He doesn't care about human lives, be it Ukrainian lives or the lives of his own people. He just cares about his own power, so if he has to nuke someone to show his own power, he could care less if that means the ultimate destruction of himself and his own country. In his warped mind, it may be better off to go out with ultimate power, rather than to live and admit defeat.
I believe very much that he may have suffered a breakdown, because I keep reading reports that people around him are saying he's being different and very erratic. With that said, their power system doesn't have a "Baker Act" type of thing. It would basically take a coup to overthrow him. With his history of human rights abuses, that would be a risky act, because if that happened and it failed, those who staged the coup would most assuredly be executed. It's gonna take 1 of 2 things for this to end. Some covert action will have to be taken by an outside country or within the Russian government to assassinate him or power will have to be taken from him via a coup within Russia. I don't see Putin ever backing down, because he is not thinking rationally and he's evil. If he loses power, he loses everything. Therefore every option is on the table.
![[Image: 1afa4c3b0174df983856c60bcd767f55.jpg]](https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220303/1afa4c3b0174df983856c60bcd767f55.jpg)
(03-02-2022, 10:36 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
(03-03-2022, 12:02 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ](03-02-2022, 10:36 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Fing idiots. Did they really say that? I hate the media.
(03-02-2022, 09:11 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]If you've listened to Putin talk about this situation, his complaint hasn't changed in years. He has been asking the West to stop the expansion of NATO to the Russian border for years. It would be one thing if NATO expanded without expanding their defensive perimeters, but they don't. They put missile silos in NATO countries. This is what Putin is talking about. He's asked the question: How would the US feel if I put missiles in Canada or Mexico? They wouldn't like it. And he's saying Russians don't either. The West has abandoned geopolitical centrism in favor of the bully pulpit, because they don't fear repercussions from anyone. There is an arrogance to our policies.
I have listened to Putin speak for hours, and he comes across as a rational, intelligent man. Would I vouch for his moral character? Nope. But I would say that he's had a legitimate, reasonable complaint for most of our actions that affect his nation. Should he be invading Ukraine? No. Absolutely not. Does he have valid accusations against the West, though.... I think he does. The thing is, I can't say for certain who Putin actually is. Putin may be losing it for all I know, but how would I know. I certainly don't trust the media that has constantly lied about everything for the last 12-15 years.
(03-03-2022, 07:35 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ](03-03-2022, 12:02 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Fing idiots. Did they really say that? I hate the media.
But, it is true that the Ukraine crisis has caused gas prices and inflation to rise, and it's also increased our supply chain issues. So, I don't get it. Why are you mad about that statement?
(03-03-2022, 07:46 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ](03-02-2022, 09:11 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]If you've listened to Putin talk about this situation, his complaint hasn't changed in years. He has been asking the West to stop the expansion of NATO to the Russian border for years. It would be one thing if NATO expanded without expanding their defensive perimeters, but they don't. They put missile silos in NATO countries. This is what Putin is talking about. He's asked the question: How would the US feel if I put missiles in Canada or Mexico? They wouldn't like it. And he's saying Russians don't either. The West has abandoned geopolitical centrism in favor of the bully pulpit, because they don't fear repercussions from anyone. There is an arrogance to our policies.
I have listened to Putin speak for hours, and he comes across as a rational, intelligent man. Would I vouch for his moral character? Nope. But I would say that he's had a legitimate, reasonable complaint for most of our actions that affect his nation. Should he be invading Ukraine? No. Absolutely not. Does he have valid accusations against the West, though.... I think he does. The thing is, I can't say for certain who Putin actually is. Putin may be losing it for all I know, but how would I know. I certainly don't trust the media that has constantly lied about everything for the last 12-15 years.
In the past, the spiral towards war has often had a perfect logic to it, as if everyone acted exactly the way one would expect, and yet the result was an immense catastrophe. World War 1 is a perfect example. Countries felt threatened, so they formed alliances, and those alliances made other countries feel threatened, so they formed their own alliances. Germany knew that in case of war, they would have to fight on two fronts, against the Russians on one side and the French on the other side. So, knowing how long it would take the French to Mobilize (2 weeks) and how long it would take the Russians to mobilize (6 weeks), they formulated a plan to hit the French first, knock them out, and then turn on the Russians. But that meant that once the Russians announced a mobilization, the clock was ticking, so the Germans had to throw the first punch, at the French.
And that's what happened. A Serb killed an Austrian archduke, the Austrians went after the Serbs, the Russians defended the Serbs, the Germans back the Austrians, the French backed the Russians, someone announced a mobilization, and everything kicked in. The Germans knew if they didn't throw the first punch, they were dead meat.
It all had a perfect logic to it in hindsight, but at the time, no one had the slightest idea that the deck was stacked for the worst disaster in the history of the world up to that point.
And yes, it is understandable that a totalitarian regime like Russia might feel threatened by the rise of democracies on its borders, but what they have done by attacking Ukraine is make things even worse for themselves, because now all those former Soviet satellites can say,
"See? This is why we joined NATO. We thought that if we didn't join NATO, Russia could possibly attack us and try to bring us back into their control, and now it's been confirmed. That's exactly what has happened in Ukraine."
You say Putin has valid accusations against the West. I disagree. Putin's paranoia about NATO is based on the premise that NATO could attack Russia, which is ridiculous.
(03-03-2022, 07:35 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ](03-03-2022, 12:02 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Fing idiots. Did they really say that? I hate the media.
But, it is true that the Ukraine crisis has caused gas prices and inflation to rise, and it's also increased our supply chain issues. So, I don't get it. Why are you mad about that statement?
(03-03-2022, 07:46 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ](03-02-2022, 09:11 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]If you've listened to Putin talk about this situation, his complaint hasn't changed in years. He has been asking the West to stop the expansion of NATO to the Russian border for years. It would be one thing if NATO expanded without expanding their defensive perimeters, but they don't. They put missile silos in NATO countries. This is what Putin is talking about. He's asked the question: How would the US feel if I put missiles in Canada or Mexico? They wouldn't like it. And he's saying Russians don't either. The West has abandoned geopolitical centrism in favor of the bully pulpit, because they don't fear repercussions from anyone. There is an arrogance to our policies.
I have listened to Putin speak for hours, and he comes across as a rational, intelligent man. Would I vouch for his moral character? Nope. But I would say that he's had a legitimate, reasonable complaint for most of our actions that affect his nation. Should he be invading Ukraine? No. Absolutely not. Does he have valid accusations against the West, though.... I think he does. The thing is, I can't say for certain who Putin actually is. Putin may be losing it for all I know, but how would I know. I certainly don't trust the media that has constantly lied about everything for the last 12-15 years.
In the past, the spiral towards war has often had a perfect logic to it, as if everyone acted exactly the way one would expect, and yet the result was an immense catastrophe. World War 1 is a perfect example. Countries felt threatened, so they formed alliances, and those alliances made other countries feel threatened, so they formed their own alliances. Germany knew that in case of war, they would have to fight on two fronts, against the Russians on one side and the French on the other side. So, knowing how long it would take the French to Mobilize (2 weeks) and how long it would take the Russians to mobilize (6 weeks), they formulated a plan to hit the French first, knock them out, and then turn on the Russians. But that meant that once the Russians announced a mobilization, the clock was ticking, so the Germans had to throw the first punch, at the French.
And that's what happened. A Serb killed an Austrian archduke, the Austrians went after the Serbs, the Russians defended the Serbs, the Germans back the Austrians, the French backed the Russians, someone announced a mobilization, and everything kicked in. The Germans knew if they didn't throw the first punch, they were dead meat.
It all had a perfect logic to it in hindsight, but at the time, no one had the slightest idea that the deck was stacked for the worst disaster in the history of the world up to that point.
And yes, it is understandable that a totalitarian regime like Russia might feel threatened by the rise of democracies on its borders, but what they have done by attacking Ukraine is make things even worse for themselves, because now all those former Soviet satellites can say,
"See? This is why we joined NATO. We thought that if we didn't join NATO, Russia could possibly attack us and try to bring us back into their control, and now it's been confirmed. That's exactly what has happened in Ukraine."
You say Putin has valid accusations against the West. I disagree. Putin's paranoia about NATO is based on the premise that NATO could attack Russia, which is ridiculous.
(03-03-2022, 10:39 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ](03-03-2022, 07:46 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]In the past, the spiral towards war has often had a perfect logic to it, as if everyone acted exactly the way one would expect, and yet the result was an immense catastrophe. World War 1 is a perfect example. Countries felt threatened, so they formed alliances, and those alliances made other countries feel threatened, so they formed their own alliances. Germany knew that in case of war, they would have to fight on two fronts, against the Russians on one side and the French on the other side. So, knowing how long it would take the French to Mobilize (2 weeks) and how long it would take the Russians to mobilize (6 weeks), they formulated a plan to hit the French first, knock them out, and then turn on the Russians. But that meant that once the Russians announced a mobilization, the clock was ticking, so the Germans had to throw the first punch, at the French.
And that's what happened. A Serb killed an Austrian archduke, the Austrians went after the Serbs, the Russians defended the Serbs, the Germans back the Austrians, the French backed the Russians, someone announced a mobilization, and everything kicked in. The Germans knew if they didn't throw the first punch, they were dead meat.
It all had a perfect logic to it in hindsight, but at the time, no one had the slightest idea that the deck was stacked for the worst disaster in the history of the world up to that point.
And yes, it is understandable that a totalitarian regime like Russia might feel threatened by the rise of democracies on its borders, but what they have done by attacking Ukraine is make things even worse for themselves, because now all those former Soviet satellites can say,
"See? This is why we joined NATO. We thought that if we didn't join NATO, Russia could possibly attack us and try to bring us back into their control, and now it's been confirmed. That's exactly what has happened in Ukraine."
You say Putin has valid accusations against the West. I disagree. Putin's paranoia about NATO is based on the premise that NATO could attack Russia, which is ridiculous.
The United States would unequivocally go to war if Russia put missile silos in Canada or Mexico or anywhere in Central America.
We blockaded and almost destroyed their fleets for putting missiles in Cuba.
It's hubris at it finest that we try to hold the moral high ground here. We are encroaching on their territory using our allies.
Let's not forget at the height of the Cold War the United States had 5 times the nukes that big bad Russia had. 5 times. Maybe, just maybe, WE were the bad guy
(03-03-2022, 10:39 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ](03-03-2022, 07:46 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]In the past, the spiral towards war has often had a perfect logic to it, as if everyone acted exactly the way one would expect, and yet the result was an immense catastrophe. World War 1 is a perfect example. Countries felt threatened, so they formed alliances, and those alliances made other countries feel threatened, so they formed their own alliances. Germany knew that in case of war, they would have to fight on two fronts, against the Russians on one side and the French on the other side. So, knowing how long it would take the French to Mobilize (2 weeks) and how long it would take the Russians to mobilize (6 weeks), they formulated a plan to hit the French first, knock them out, and then turn on the Russians. But that meant that once the Russians announced a mobilization, the clock was ticking, so the Germans had to throw the first punch, at the French.
And that's what happened. A Serb killed an Austrian archduke, the Austrians went after the Serbs, the Russians defended the Serbs, the Germans back the Austrians, the French backed the Russians, someone announced a mobilization, and everything kicked in. The Germans knew if they didn't throw the first punch, they were dead meat.
It all had a perfect logic to it in hindsight, but at the time, no one had the slightest idea that the deck was stacked for the worst disaster in the history of the world up to that point.
And yes, it is understandable that a totalitarian regime like Russia might feel threatened by the rise of democracies on its borders, but what they have done by attacking Ukraine is make things even worse for themselves, because now all those former Soviet satellites can say,
"See? This is why we joined NATO. We thought that if we didn't join NATO, Russia could possibly attack us and try to bring us back into their control, and now it's been confirmed. That's exactly what has happened in Ukraine."
You say Putin has valid accusations against the West. I disagree. Putin's paranoia about NATO is based on the premise that NATO could attack Russia, which is ridiculous.
The United States would unequivocally go to war if Russia put missile silos in Canada or Mexico or anywhere in Central America.
We blockaded and almost destroyed their fleets for putting missiles in Cuba.
It's hubris at it finest that we try to hold the moral high ground here. We are encroaching on their territory using our allies.
Let's not forget at the height of the Cold War the United States had 5 times the nukes that big bad Russia had. 5 times. Maybe, just maybe, WE were the bad guy
(03-03-2022, 12:12 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Don't get me wrong, I think communism is evil because it's just an oligarchy or dictatorship under a different name.
However... why did the Cuban missile crisis happen?
Because we put SRBMs in Turkey first. The United States put nukes right next to Russia... and they responded with Cuba... which we responded to with Military force.
And what happened? We took away ours they took away theirs.
(03-03-2022, 10:39 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ](03-03-2022, 07:46 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]In the past, the spiral towards war has often had a perfect logic to it, as if everyone acted exactly the way one would expect, and yet the result was an immense catastrophe. World War 1 is a perfect example. Countries felt threatened, so they formed alliances, and those alliances made other countries feel threatened, so they formed their own alliances. Germany knew that in case of war, they would have to fight on two fronts, against the Russians on one side and the French on the other side. So, knowing how long it would take the French to Mobilize (2 weeks) and how long it would take the Russians to mobilize (6 weeks), they formulated a plan to hit the French first, knock them out, and then turn on the Russians. But that meant that once the Russians announced a mobilization, the clock was ticking, so the Germans had to throw the first punch, at the French.
And that's what happened. A Serb killed an Austrian archduke, the Austrians went after the Serbs, the Russians defended the Serbs, the Germans back the Austrians, the French backed the Russians, someone announced a mobilization, and everything kicked in. The Germans knew if they didn't throw the first punch, they were dead meat.
It all had a perfect logic to it in hindsight, but at the time, no one had the slightest idea that the deck was stacked for the worst disaster in the history of the world up to that point.
And yes, it is understandable that a totalitarian regime like Russia might feel threatened by the rise of democracies on its borders, but what they have done by attacking Ukraine is make things even worse for themselves, because now all those former Soviet satellites can say,
"See? This is why we joined NATO. We thought that if we didn't join NATO, Russia could possibly attack us and try to bring us back into their control, and now it's been confirmed. That's exactly what has happened in Ukraine."
You say Putin has valid accusations against the West. I disagree. Putin's paranoia about NATO is based on the premise that NATO could attack Russia, which is ridiculous.
The United States would unequivocally go to war if Russia put missile silos in Canada or Mexico or anywhere in Central America.
We blockaded and almost destroyed their fleets for putting missiles in Cuba.
It's hubris at it finest that we try to hold the moral high ground here. We are encroaching on their territory using our allies.
Let's not forget at the height of the Cold War the United States had 5 times the nukes that big bad Russia had. 5 times. Maybe, just maybe, WE were the bad guy
(03-03-2022, 01:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ](03-03-2022, 12:12 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Don't get me wrong, I think communism is evil because it's just an oligarchy or dictatorship under a different name.
However... why did the Cuban missile crisis happen?
Because we put SRBMs in Turkey first. The United States put nukes right next to Russia... and they responded with Cuba... which we responded to with Military force.
And what happened? We took away ours they took away theirs.
That's a fair point, and I'm going to ask because I genuinely don't know, but do we have SRBMs in poland, or Romania, or the Baltics? I don't think we do. We just have AA radar/missile facilities, which are purely defensive. Unless I'm misinformed.
(03-03-2022, 01:14 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ](03-03-2022, 10:39 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]The United States would unequivocally go to war if Russia put missile silos in Canada or Mexico or anywhere in Central America.
We blockaded and almost destroyed their fleets for putting missiles in Cuba.
It's hubris at it finest that we try to hold the moral high ground here. We are encroaching on their territory using our allies.
Let's not forget at the height of the Cold War the United States had 5 times the nukes that big bad Russia had. 5 times. Maybe, just maybe, WE were the bad guy
Excuse please? We're we murdering people? We're we throwing people in goulags??
Russia is a country that will use military force to achieve territorial ambitions. Nato isn't. Ukraine was seeking membership of their own free will. Putting is slaughtering innocent people to keep them in the Russian sphere of influence.
It's the use of coercive and imitate force to deprive other people of their God given rights that defines evil.