How close are we to WWIII?

[Dude#1279435]

Sounds like they are getting close to an agreement. It sounds like it would go in stages, like 60 days length.

 

[3db]

Sounds like they are getting close to an agreement. It sounds like it would go in stages, like 60 days length.

That agreement is still far from being signed. I've learned to trust what's coming out of Tehran before the crap I hear from our Western media.

..around the 8:30 time mark and onwards.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Well....this is great.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/russia-nato-arms-germany-war-canada-9.7232514

Here's another article about the Russian military buildup along NATAO's northern flank.

>>>In another indication of the growing military and economic importance of the Arctic, Russia and NATO are increasing their buildup of forces and facilities in the region. Recent media investigations found that Russia is constructing new bases near Finland to eventually house tens of thousands of troops while NATO on Saturday stood up a long-planned new battalion battlegroup. It is a force that will operate in Finland and Sweden as a deterrent against Russia.<<<

Russia Building New Infrastructure For Major Troop Deployments Along NATO's Northern Flank

As Russia builds facilities for tens of thousands of troops, NATO is also bolstering its defenses with a new Arctic combat force to act as a deterrent.

www.twz.com

I find myself wondering if ending the war in Ukraine would actually be bad for NATO because it would allow Russia to shift it's resources and invade NATO countries.

Did I mention that I hate Putin?

 

[highfigh]

Here's another article about the Russian military buildup along NATAO's northern flank.

>>>In another indication of the growing military and economic importance of the Arctic, Russia and NATO are increasing their buildup of forces and facilities in the region. Recent media investigations found that Russia is constructing new bases near Finland to eventually house tens of thousands of troops while NATO on Saturday stood up a long-planned new battalion battlegroup. It is a force that will operate in Finland and Sweden as a deterrent against Russia.<<<

Russia Building New Infrastructure For Major Troop Deployments Along NATO's Northern Flank

As Russia builds facilities for tens of thousands of troops, NATO is also bolstering its defenses with a new Arctic combat force to act as a deterrent.

www.twz.com

I find myself wondering if ending the war in Ukraine would actually be bad for NATO because it would allow Russia to shift it's resources and invade NATO countries.

Did I mention that I hate Putin?

And with Article 5, how long do you think that attack would last, considering it's one Russia and all NATO allies could be involved? That would be suicide, but then, there's the nuclear BS to consider. If Putin is dying and wants to go out in a blaze of glory, someone needs to go in.

 

[3db]

The war in Ukraine was for me such a black and white issue but now, all I see is gray and understand both sides of this stupid war. Basically, NATO broke an agreement with Russia to stop NATO expansion onto Russia’s borders. In typical US fashion, the US broke the agreement. That’s why Putin went into Ukraine.

I also understand why Ukraine wants to be its own country and free from Russia. Maybe the reason for not admitting Ukraine into NATO is because of the agreement made between NATO and Russia but I’m just guessing at the reason.

 

[Dude#1279435]

The war in Ukraine was for me such a black and white issue but now, all I see is gray and understand both sides of this stupid war. Basically, NATO broke an agreement with Russia to stop NATO expansion onto Russia’s borders. In typical US fashion, the US broke the agreement. That’s why Putin went into Ukraine.

I also understand why Ukraine wants to be its own country and free from Russia. Maybe the reason for not admitting Ukraine into NATO is because of the agreement made between NATO and Russia but I’m just guessing at the reason.

I'm not really sure what expansion on borders means? I'd be surprised if NATO were trying to invade Russian territory. Instead their doing it to prevent a Russian invasion. It's like Ukraine where Russia has always wanted to occupy it. I could be wrong but it feels like Russia is playing the yo-yo game of if you put troops on our borders we invade. If you don't put troops on our border we invade.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Here's another article about the Russian military buildup along NATAO's northern flank.

>>>In another indication of the growing military and economic importance of the Arctic, Russia and NATO are increasing their buildup of forces and facilities in the region. Recent media investigations found that Russia is constructing new bases near Finland to eventually house tens of thousands of troops while NATO on Saturday stood up a long-planned new battalion battlegroup. It is a force that will operate in Finland and Sweden as a deterrent against Russia.<<<

Russia Building New Infrastructure For Major Troop Deployments Along NATO's Northern Flank

As Russia builds facilities for tens of thousands of troops, NATO is also bolstering its defenses with a new Arctic combat force to act as a deterrent.

www.twz.com

I find myself wondering if ending the war in Ukraine would actually be bad for NATO because it would allow Russia to shift it's resources and invade NATO countries.

Did I mention that I hate Putin?

I've had much the same thoughts about Ukraine tying down Russian resources. If Russia defeats Ukraine, the threat to the Baltic region will increase substantially. That said, the degree of such an increase will depend on what it cost - in rubles and manpower - to win in Ukraine.

Putin is a psychopath.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Mohammad Marandi and Trita Parsi are a couple of good sources for insights on Iran etc via YT.

 

[GO-NAD!]

And with Article 5, how long do you think that attack would last, considering it's one Russia and all NATO allies could be involved? That would be suicide, but then, there's the nuclear BS to consider. If Putin is dying and wants to go out in a blaze of glory, someone needs to go in.

With the US withdrawing much of its strength from Western Europe and Trump suggesting that he might not honour Article 5, one has to wonder if Putin's designs on the Baltic region firming up. He probably wouldn't risk a full-scale invasion though. I imagine it would start with a demand for a corridor to the Kaliningrad Oblast. He may push forces through Lithuania and/or Poland, hoping that NATO would try to appease him. Lithuania would be the more likely route, as I don't think Poland would be inclined to back down. If that succeeded, he may push his luck and demand more territory from the Baltic states.

Kaliningrad Oblast - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's a race against time. European and Canadian NATO allies are rapidly increasing defence expenditures, hoping they can form a credible deterrent before a possible Ukraine defeat. Meanwhile, Russia is spending vast sums, aided in no small part by the Iran war, with the substantial increase in crude oil prices being a lifeline for Russian state coffers.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The war in Ukraine was for me such a black and white issue but now, all I see is gray and understand both sides of this stupid war. Basically, NATO broke an agreement with Russia to stop NATO expansion onto Russia’s borders. In typical US fashion, the US broke the agreement. That’s why Putin went into Ukraine.

I also understand why Ukraine wants to be its own country and free from Russia. Maybe the reason for not admitting Ukraine into NATO is because of the agreement made between NATO and Russia but I’m just guessing at the reason.

While there were informal assurances that NATO would not add former Warsaw Pact countries to the alliance, there is no treaty or agreement stating that. And, it was less NATO expansion than these countries begging to join. Regardless, that was not the reason Russia invaded Ukraine. Putin wants to recover the (supposed) glory of the Russian Empire/Soviet Union. That would include bringing Ukraine back into the fold and, in the future, possibly the Baltic states. Prior to the invasion, there was no serious prospect of Ukraine being admitted to NATO.

The actual agreement that was broken was the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. The US, UK and Russia offered security assurances to Ukraine in exchange for giving up her nuclear weapons. Russia broke it by invading, while the US and the UK broke it by not coming to her defence. While the Memorandum did not carry the force of a formal treaty, it stands on much firmer ground than any informal restriction on NATO expansion.

With the substantial reduction of NATO defence budgets following the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, Russian expressions of concern about the threat presented by NATO expansion are nonsense.

 

[3db]

While there were informal assurances that NATO would not add former Warsaw Pact countries to the alliance, there is no treaty or agreement stating that. And, it was less NATO expansion than these countries begging to join. Regardless, that was not the reason Russia invaded Ukraine. Putin wants to recover the (supposed) glory of the Russian Empire/Soviet Union. That would include bringing Ukraine back into the fold and, in the future, possibly the Baltic states. Prior to the invasion, there was no serious prospect of Ukraine being admitted to NATO.

The actual agreement that was broken was the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. The US, UK and Russia offered security assurances to Ukraine in exchange for giving up her nuclear weapons. Russia broke it by invading, while the US and the UK broke it by not coming to her defence. While the Memorandum did not carry the force of a formal treaty, it stands on much firmer ground than any informal restriction on NATO expansion.

With the substantial reduction of NATO defence budgets following the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, Russian expressions of concern about the threat presented by NATO expansion are nonsense.

Are you absolutely sure Putin went into Ukraine for the reasons you have stated or does he want some buffer states between Russia and NATO? Could it be that the US was following the watered down Wolfowitz Doctrine called the Bush Doctrine which allowed NATO expansion into the Baltic states?

 

[3db]

M

Mohammad Marandi and Trita Parsi are a couple of good sources for insights on Iran etc via YT.

I follow them as well Wilkerson, Johnson, Glieson ( not sure about the spelling of his last name), Pape, Sachs, McGregor, and Karen Kowolski (again with the spelling).

 

[Dude#1279435]

No surprise but heard Israel attacked Beirut.

 

[Dude#1279435]

I might have the exact wording a bit off but the part where the UN blacklisted Israel over sexual misconduct during war.. Or where Wilkerson says they will kill civilians because they will grow up to be terrorists.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Are you absolutely sure Putin went into Ukraine for the reasons you have stated or does he want some buffer states between Russia and NATO? Could it be that the US was following the watered down Wolfowitz Doctrine called the Bush Doctrine which allowed NATO expansion into the Baltic states?

Buffer? NATO already borders Russia from the Arctic (Norway) to the Black Sea (Turkey) in a line that is broken only by Belarus. What practical difference would Ukraine make? Regardless, one country's desire for such a buffer does not entitle it to take another country's territory.

I can't see how the Wolfowitz Doctrine had more than a tangential relationship to NATO expansion. That Doctrine - the idea that the US should be the planet's sole hegemon/superpower - would only be superficially enhanced by admitting new and very weak NATO members.

All those former Warsaw Pact countries that are now members of NATO asked to join because of their fears of Russia. They weren't given that choice when the WP was formed. You'd think that might make a normal country's leadership reflect on this and maybe get the hint that they might actually be the problem.

NATO gained practically nothing by accepting Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into NATO. They don't have vast resources to contribute to the organisation's collective defence, are especially vulnerable to Russian aggression due to geography, yet benefit from the umbrella offered by Article 5. NATO took on a net liability in accepting them.