User Panel
Quoted: I thought I’ve made my position very clear, multiple times. I don’t give a shit about this war. I don’t care how long it lasts or doesn’t last. I don’t care who wins. I don’t care who loses. All I care about is NATO’s involvement and that involvement escalating to the point of endangering people within the US and a potential nuclear confrontation on a global scale. This is all just one big deflection from real problems happening here in America to real Americans that the regime is actually causing. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. Do you want the war to end or not? Ukraine should be looking for how to avoid being invaded by Russia again in a few years. There has been one way which has worked for other FSRs. I thought I’ve made my position very clear, multiple times. I don’t give a shit about this war. I don’t care how long it lasts or doesn’t last. I don’t care who wins. I don’t care who loses. All I care about is NATO’s involvement and that involvement escalating to the point of endangering people within the US and a potential nuclear confrontation on a global scale. This is all just one big deflection from real problems happening here in America to real Americans that the regime is actually causing. For someone who “doesn’t give a shit”, you talk about it a lot… NATO was created to counter just this kind of thing- you know that, don’t you? |
|
Quoted: “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. |
|
Quoted: For someone who “doesn’t give a shit”, you talk about it a lot… NATO was created to counter just this kind of thing- you know that, don’t you? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. Do you want the war to end or not? Ukraine should be looking for how to avoid being invaded by Russia again in a few years. There has been one way which has worked for other FSRs. I thought I’ve made my position very clear, multiple times. I don’t give a shit about this war. I don’t care how long it lasts or doesn’t last. I don’t care who wins. I don’t care who loses. All I care about is NATO’s involvement and that involvement escalating to the point of endangering people within the US and a potential nuclear confrontation on a global scale. This is all just one big deflection from real problems happening here in America to real Americans that the regime is actually causing. For someone who “doesn’t give a shit”, you talk about it a lot… NATO was created to counter just this kind of thing- you know that, don’t you? UKRAINE IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF NATO. |
|
Quoted: I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. |
|
Quoted: UKRAINE IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF NATO. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. Do you want the war to end or not? Ukraine should be looking for how to avoid being invaded by Russia again in a few years. There has been one way which has worked for other FSRs. I thought I’ve made my position very clear, multiple times. I don’t give a shit about this war. I don’t care how long it lasts or doesn’t last. I don’t care who wins. I don’t care who loses. All I care about is NATO’s involvement and that involvement escalating to the point of endangering people within the US and a potential nuclear confrontation on a global scale. This is all just one big deflection from real problems happening here in America to real Americans that the regime is actually causing. For someone who “doesn’t give a shit”, you talk about it a lot… NATO was created to counter just this kind of thing- you know that, don’t you? UKRAINE IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF NATO. Brilliant observation… But if you were under direct threat from Russia, why wouldn’t you want to join or seek help from an organization to contain Russian aggression? What would be wrong with that? If you were an organization formed specifically to contain Russian expansionism, why wouldn’t you react to Russian expansionism? |
|
Quoted: Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters Who are the “puppet masters”? |
|
Quoted: I thought I’ve made my position very clear, multiple times. I don’t give a shit about this war. I don’t care how long it lasts or doesn’t last. I don’t care who wins. I don’t care who loses. All I care about is NATO’s involvement and that involvement escalating to the point of endangering people within the US and a potential nuclear confrontation on a global scale. This is all just one big deflection from real problems happening here in America to real Americans that the regime is actually causing. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. Do you want the war to end or not? Ukraine should be looking for how to avoid being invaded by Russia again in a few years. There has been one way which has worked for other FSRs. I thought I’ve made my position very clear, multiple times. I don’t give a shit about this war. I don’t care how long it lasts or doesn’t last. I don’t care who wins. I don’t care who loses. All I care about is NATO’s involvement and that involvement escalating to the point of endangering people within the US and a potential nuclear confrontation on a global scale. This is all just one big deflection from real problems happening here in America to real Americans that the regime is actually causing. You do NOT care about all the things that affect the thing you DO care about? Interesting ploy. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters Who are the “puppet masters”? You act as if you’ve just logged into this site and heard this for the first time. Do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? |
|
Quoted: Brilliant observation… But if you were under direct threat from Russia, why wouldn’t you want to join or seek help from an organization to contain Russian aggression? What would be wrong with that? If you were an organization formed specifically to contain Russian expansionism, why wouldn’t you react to Russian expansionism? View Quote NATO was formed to contain Soviet aggression. At the start and up until the fall of the Soviet empire it made much more sense than it does today. Now it's more akin to finishing off some old crazy Fudd in a wheelchair. An old half-dead and nearly blind Fudd with nuclear weapons that doesn't have much left to lose. At least that evil turdburglar Lindsay Graham announced the goal out loud. It's regime change, baby, but with no plan for the aftermath. Sound familiar? We've tried it a few times in the last 80 years and it always blows up in our faces. I'm sure it'll be different this time.... |
|
Quoted: You act as if you’ve just logged into this site and heard this for the first time. Do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters Who are the “puppet masters”? You act as if you’ve just logged into this site and heard this for the first time. Do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? Don’t dodge, answer the question. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters Who are the “puppet masters”? You act as if you’ve just logged into this site and heard this for the first time. Do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? Don’t dodge, answer the question. How would I know? Again do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? |
|
Quoted: NATO was formed to contain Soviet aggression. At the start and up until the fall of the Soviet empire it made much more sense than it does today. Now it's more akin to finishing off some old crazy Fudd in a wheelchair. An old half-dead and nearly blind Fudd with nuclear weapons that doesn't have much left to lose. At least that evil turdburglar Lindsay Graham announced the goal out loud. It's regime change, baby, but with no plan for the aftermath. Sound familiar? We've tried it a few times in the last 80 years and it always blows up in our faces. I'm sure it'll be different this time.... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Brilliant observation… But if you were under direct threat from Russia, why wouldn’t you want to join or seek help from an organization to contain Russian aggression? What would be wrong with that? If you were an organization formed specifically to contain Russian expansionism, why wouldn’t you react to Russian expansionism? NATO was formed to contain Soviet aggression. At the start and up until the fall of the Soviet empire it made much more sense than it does today. Now it's more akin to finishing off some old crazy Fudd in a wheelchair. An old half-dead and nearly blind Fudd with nuclear weapons that doesn't have much left to lose. At least that evil turdburglar Lindsay Graham announced the goal out loud. It's regime change, baby, but with no plan for the aftermath. Sound familiar? We've tried it a few times in the last 80 years and it always blows up in our faces. I'm sure it'll be different this time.... Who sits at the Soviet Union's permanent seat on the Security Council? |
|
Quoted: NATO was formed to contain Soviet aggression. At the start and up until the fall of the Soviet empire it made much more sense than it does today. Now it's more akin to finishing off some old crazy Fudd in a wheelchair. An old half-dead and nearly blind Fudd with nuclear weapons that doesn't have much left to lose. At least that evil turdburglar Lindsay Graham announced the goal out loud. It's regime change, baby, but with no plan for the aftermath. Sound familiar? We've tried it a few times in the last 80 years and it always blows up in our faces. I'm sure it'll be different this time.... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Brilliant observation… But if you were under direct threat from Russia, why wouldn’t you want to join or seek help from an organization to contain Russian aggression? What would be wrong with that? If you were an organization formed specifically to contain Russian expansionism, why wouldn’t you react to Russian expansionism? NATO was formed to contain Soviet aggression. At the start and up until the fall of the Soviet empire it made much more sense than it does today. Now it's more akin to finishing off some old crazy Fudd in a wheelchair. An old half-dead and nearly blind Fudd with nuclear weapons that doesn't have much left to lose. At least that evil turdburglar Lindsay Graham announced the goal out loud. It's regime change, baby, but with no plan for the aftermath. Sound familiar? We've tried it a few times in the last 80 years and it always blows up in our faces. I'm sure it'll be different this time.... Putin’s war of expansion sure looks a lot like “trying to get the (Soviet) band back together” to me.Countering an aggressive nuclear power, headquartered in Moscow, trying to militarily expand its sphere of influence sounds like its right in NATO’s wheelhouse, wouldn’t you think? That countries (former Soviet client states) under direct threat (assuming they don’t actually want to be part of Soviet Union v2.0) would seek help from an organization specifically created for that threat seems like a no brainer. |
|
Quoted: NATO was formed to contain Soviet aggression. At the start and up until the fall of the Soviet empire it made much more sense than it does today. Now it's more akin to finishing off some old crazy Fudd in a wheelchair. An old half-dead and nearly blind Fudd with nuclear weapons that doesn't have much left to lose. At least that evil turdburglar Lindsay Graham announced the goal out loud. It's regime change, baby, but with no plan for the aftermath. Sound familiar? We've tried it a few times in the last 80 years and it always blows up in our faces. I'm sure it'll be different this time.... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Brilliant observation… But if you were under direct threat from Russia, why wouldn’t you want to join or seek help from an organization to contain Russian aggression? What would be wrong with that? If you were an organization formed specifically to contain Russian expansionism, why wouldn’t you react to Russian expansionism? NATO was formed to contain Soviet aggression. At the start and up until the fall of the Soviet empire it made much more sense than it does today. Now it's more akin to finishing off some old crazy Fudd in a wheelchair. An old half-dead and nearly blind Fudd with nuclear weapons that doesn't have much left to lose. At least that evil turdburglar Lindsay Graham announced the goal out loud. It's regime change, baby, but with no plan for the aftermath. Sound familiar? We've tried it a few times in the last 80 years and it always blows up in our faces. I'm sure it'll be different this time.... No mention of Russia or the Soviet Union: The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty : Article 1 The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Article 2 The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them. Article 3 In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. Article 4 The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened. Article 5 The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security . Article 6 1 For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. Article 7 This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. Article 8 Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. Article 9 The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5. Article 10 The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession. Article 11 This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. (3) Article 12 After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security. Article 13 After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation. Article 14 This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories. The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951. On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962. The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949, after the deposition of the ratifications of all signatory states. |
|
Quoted: How would I know? Again do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters Who are the “puppet masters”? You act as if you’ve just logged into this site and heard this for the first time. Do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? Don’t dodge, answer the question. How would I know? Again do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? So a bunch of folks you can’t identify are so brilliant that they manipulated poor, innocent Russia into a fight in Ukraine, and similarly manipulated Ukraine into seeking aid, so that, somewhere down the line, they can trick poor Russia into starting a nuclear exchange because… reasons? And this nebulous threat is so important that you have to go on about it for this many pages. |
|
Quoted: So a bunch of folks you can’t identify are so brilliant that they manipulated poor, innocent Russia into a fight in Ukraine, and similarly manipulated Ukraine into seeking aid, so that, somewhere down the line, they can trick poor Russia into starting a nuclear exchange because… reasons? And this nebulous threat is so important that you have to go on about it for this many pages. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters Who are the “puppet masters”? You act as if you’ve just logged into this site and heard this for the first time. Do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? Don’t dodge, answer the question. How would I know? Again do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? So a bunch of folks you can’t identify are so brilliant that they manipulated poor, innocent Russia into a fight in Ukraine, and similarly manipulated Ukraine into seeking aid, so that, somewhere down the line, they can trick poor Russia into starting a nuclear exchange because… reasons? And this nebulous threat is so important that you have to go on about it for this many pages. Stop deflecting. Answer my question. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters Who are the “puppet masters”? You act as if you’ve just logged into this site and heard this for the first time. Do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? Don’t dodge, answer the question. How would I know? Again do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? So a bunch of folks you can’t identify are so brilliant that they manipulated poor, innocent Russia into a fight in Ukraine, and similarly manipulated Ukraine into seeking aid, so that, somewhere down the line, they can trick poor Russia into starting a nuclear exchange because… reasons? And this nebulous threat is so important that you have to go on about it for this many pages. Stop deflecting. Answer my question. You’re the one that has all the answers, not me. You want me to answer questions about people that you think exist but can’t identify… I’m not privy to the inner workings of the Biden household. I’m absolutely sure a lot of folks vie for influence over the decisions made by the president. How much influence any particular individual, who you yourself can’t seem to identify, has is beyond my knowledge. If it wasn’t, maybe I’d start 20 page rants about nothing too. |
|
Quoted: You’re the one that has all the answers, not me. You want me to answer questions about people that you think exist but can’t identify… I’m not privy to the inner workings of the Biden household. I’m absolutely sure a lot of folks vie for influence over the decisions made by the president. How much influence any particular individual, who you yourself can’t seem to identify, has is beyond my knowledge. If it wasn’t, maybe I’d start 20 page rants about nothing too. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters Who are the “puppet masters”? You act as if you’ve just logged into this site and heard this for the first time. Do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? Don’t dodge, answer the question. How would I know? Again do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? So a bunch of folks you can’t identify are so brilliant that they manipulated poor, innocent Russia into a fight in Ukraine, and similarly manipulated Ukraine into seeking aid, so that, somewhere down the line, they can trick poor Russia into starting a nuclear exchange because… reasons? And this nebulous threat is so important that you have to go on about it for this many pages. Stop deflecting. Answer my question. You’re the one that has all the answers, not me. You want me to answer questions about people that you think exist but can’t identify… I’m not privy to the inner workings of the Biden household. I’m absolutely sure a lot of folks vie for influence over the decisions made by the president. How much influence any particular individual, who you yourself can’t seem to identify, has is beyond my knowledge. If it wasn’t, maybe I’d start 20 page rants about nothing too. It was a simple yes or no question. Yes or No |
|
Quoted: It was a simple yes or no question. Yes or No View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters Who are the “puppet masters”? You act as if you’ve just logged into this site and heard this for the first time. Do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? Don’t dodge, answer the question. How would I know? Again do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? So a bunch of folks you can’t identify are so brilliant that they manipulated poor, innocent Russia into a fight in Ukraine, and similarly manipulated Ukraine into seeking aid, so that, somewhere down the line, they can trick poor Russia into starting a nuclear exchange because… reasons? And this nebulous threat is so important that you have to go on about it for this many pages. Stop deflecting. Answer my question. You’re the one that has all the answers, not me. You want me to answer questions about people that you think exist but can’t identify… I’m not privy to the inner workings of the Biden household. I’m absolutely sure a lot of folks vie for influence over the decisions made by the president. How much influence any particular individual, who you yourself can’t seem to identify, has is beyond my knowledge. If it wasn’t, maybe I’d start 20 page rants about nothing too. It was a simple yes or no question. Yes or No Thread sliding your own thread again? Weird. Ok, the answer is neither “yes”, nor “no”. It’s “I don’t know”. Read my post again. |
|
Imagine what it would look like if all the decisions being made at the highest level of our government, were being made by a dementia-addled idiot who was an idiot even in his prime...
Would it look any different? |
|
Quoted: Thread sliding your own thread again? Weird. Ok, the answer is neither “yes”, nor “no”. It’s “I don’t know”. Read my post again. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters Who are the “puppet masters”? You act as if you’ve just logged into this site and heard this for the first time. Do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? Don’t dodge, answer the question. How would I know? Again do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? So a bunch of folks you can’t identify are so brilliant that they manipulated poor, innocent Russia into a fight in Ukraine, and similarly manipulated Ukraine into seeking aid, so that, somewhere down the line, they can trick poor Russia into starting a nuclear exchange because… reasons? And this nebulous threat is so important that you have to go on about it for this many pages. Stop deflecting. Answer my question. You’re the one that has all the answers, not me. You want me to answer questions about people that you think exist but can’t identify… I’m not privy to the inner workings of the Biden household. I’m absolutely sure a lot of folks vie for influence over the decisions made by the president. How much influence any particular individual, who you yourself can’t seem to identify, has is beyond my knowledge. If it wasn’t, maybe I’d start 20 page rants about nothing too. It was a simple yes or no question. Yes or No Thread sliding your own thread again? Weird. Ok, the answer is neither “yes”, nor “no”. It’s “I don’t know”. Read my post again. You don’t know, huh? Do you believe the election was legitimate or stolen? |
|
Quoted: Imagine what it would look like if all the decisions being made at the highest level of our government, were being made by a dementia-addled idiot who was an idiot even in his prime... Would it look any different? View Quote Capability is a viable question, too. Is Biden even capable of making decisions? I’m sure that capability is hampered even more with listening to multiple advisors and then coming to a conclusion based on those recommendations. Some seem perplexed that I even bring up the question yet the media should be bringing up those questions, too. We all know why they don’t, because they protecting the regime. I question if some here are doing the exact same thing as the media? |
|
Quoted: You don’t know, huh? Do you believe the election was legitimate or stolen? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters Who are the “puppet masters”? You act as if you’ve just logged into this site and heard this for the first time. Do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? Don’t dodge, answer the question. How would I know? Again do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? So a bunch of folks you can’t identify are so brilliant that they manipulated poor, innocent Russia into a fight in Ukraine, and similarly manipulated Ukraine into seeking aid, so that, somewhere down the line, they can trick poor Russia into starting a nuclear exchange because… reasons? And this nebulous threat is so important that you have to go on about it for this many pages. Stop deflecting. Answer my question. You’re the one that has all the answers, not me. You want me to answer questions about people that you think exist but can’t identify… I’m not privy to the inner workings of the Biden household. I’m absolutely sure a lot of folks vie for influence over the decisions made by the president. How much influence any particular individual, who you yourself can’t seem to identify, has is beyond my knowledge. If it wasn’t, maybe I’d start 20 page rants about nothing too. It was a simple yes or no question. Yes or No Thread sliding your own thread again? Weird. Ok, the answer is neither “yes”, nor “no”. It’s “I don’t know”. Read my post again. You don’t know, huh? Do you believe the election was legitimate or stolen? Can you report yourself for sliding your own thread? You’re kind of all over the place. |
|
|
|
Quoted: Oh, please. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/133876/Screen_Shot_2023-02-27_at_12_21_00_PM_pn-2727647.JPG View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: No mention of Russia or the Soviet Union: Oh, please. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/133876/Screen_Shot_2023-02-27_at_12_21_00_PM_pn-2727647.JPG You concisely prove my point. Thank you. The NATO treaty is ALL about collective defense. Your quote, which is not from the Treaty itself, says that "at the time," that threat was from the Soviet Union. Well, NATO exists to contain Russian aggression (or any other Nation that threatens the alliance). When Article 5 was activated after 9/11, no one complained that it didn't count, because the attackers weren't Soviets. |
|
Quoted: Can you report yourself for sliding your own thread? You’re kind of all over the place. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/69531/9FA413C3-07A0-4ED3-8E3A-2DC9ADD8936B-2727650.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters Who are the “puppet masters”? You act as if you’ve just logged into this site and heard this for the first time. Do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? Don’t dodge, answer the question. How would I know? Again do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? So a bunch of folks you can’t identify are so brilliant that they manipulated poor, innocent Russia into a fight in Ukraine, and similarly manipulated Ukraine into seeking aid, so that, somewhere down the line, they can trick poor Russia into starting a nuclear exchange because… reasons? And this nebulous threat is so important that you have to go on about it for this many pages. Stop deflecting. Answer my question. You’re the one that has all the answers, not me. You want me to answer questions about people that you think exist but can’t identify… I’m not privy to the inner workings of the Biden household. I’m absolutely sure a lot of folks vie for influence over the decisions made by the president. How much influence any particular individual, who you yourself can’t seem to identify, has is beyond my knowledge. If it wasn’t, maybe I’d start 20 page rants about nothing too. It was a simple yes or no question. Yes or No Thread sliding your own thread again? Weird. Ok, the answer is neither “yes”, nor “no”. It’s “I don’t know”. Read my post again. You don’t know, huh? Do you believe the election was legitimate or stolen? Can you report yourself for sliding your own thread? You’re kind of all over the place. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/69531/9FA413C3-07A0-4ED3-8E3A-2DC9ADD8936B-2727650.jpg It’s all related yet you either don’t see it or are intentionally deflecting. I answered your questions yet you avoid answering my questions. What are you so afraid of revealing about yourself? |
|
Quoted: It’s all related yet you either don’t see it or are intentionally deflecting. I answered your questions yet you avoid answering my questions. What are you so afraid of revealing about yourself? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters Who are the “puppet masters”? You act as if you’ve just logged into this site and heard this for the first time. Do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? Don’t dodge, answer the question. How would I know? Again do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? So a bunch of folks you can’t identify are so brilliant that they manipulated poor, innocent Russia into a fight in Ukraine, and similarly manipulated Ukraine into seeking aid, so that, somewhere down the line, they can trick poor Russia into starting a nuclear exchange because… reasons? And this nebulous threat is so important that you have to go on about it for this many pages. Stop deflecting. Answer my question. You’re the one that has all the answers, not me. You want me to answer questions about people that you think exist but can’t identify… I’m not privy to the inner workings of the Biden household. I’m absolutely sure a lot of folks vie for influence over the decisions made by the president. How much influence any particular individual, who you yourself can’t seem to identify, has is beyond my knowledge. If it wasn’t, maybe I’d start 20 page rants about nothing too. It was a simple yes or no question. Yes or No Thread sliding your own thread again? Weird. Ok, the answer is neither “yes”, nor “no”. It’s “I don’t know”. Read my post again. You don’t know, huh? Do you believe the election was legitimate or stolen? Can you report yourself for sliding your own thread? You’re kind of all over the place. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/69531/9FA413C3-07A0-4ED3-8E3A-2DC9ADD8936B-2727650.jpg It’s all related yet you either don’t see it or are intentionally deflecting. I answered your questions yet you avoid answering my questions. What are you so afraid of revealing about yourself? See the whacky conspiracy guy I posted above? You’re being that guy. What question of yours did I fail to answer? |
|
Quoted: See the whacky conspiracy guy I posted above? You’re being that guy. What question of yours did I fail to answer? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters Who are the “puppet masters”? You act as if you’ve just logged into this site and heard this for the first time. Do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? Don’t dodge, answer the question. How would I know? Again do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? So a bunch of folks you can’t identify are so brilliant that they manipulated poor, innocent Russia into a fight in Ukraine, and similarly manipulated Ukraine into seeking aid, so that, somewhere down the line, they can trick poor Russia into starting a nuclear exchange because… reasons? And this nebulous threat is so important that you have to go on about it for this many pages. Stop deflecting. Answer my question. You’re the one that has all the answers, not me. You want me to answer questions about people that you think exist but can’t identify… I’m not privy to the inner workings of the Biden household. I’m absolutely sure a lot of folks vie for influence over the decisions made by the president. How much influence any particular individual, who you yourself can’t seem to identify, has is beyond my knowledge. If it wasn’t, maybe I’d start 20 page rants about nothing too. It was a simple yes or no question. Yes or No Thread sliding your own thread again? Weird. Ok, the answer is neither “yes”, nor “no”. It’s “I don’t know”. Read my post again. You don’t know, huh? Do you believe the election was legitimate or stolen? Can you report yourself for sliding your own thread? You’re kind of all over the place. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/69531/9FA413C3-07A0-4ED3-8E3A-2DC9ADD8936B-2727650.jpg It’s all related yet you either don’t see it or are intentionally deflecting. I answered your questions yet you avoid answering my questions. What are you so afraid of revealing about yourself? See the whacky conspiracy guy I posted above? You’re being that guy. What question of yours did I fail to answer? Whacky conspiracy guy for asking if you believe the election was legitimate or stolen, huh? Well, thanks. You did just actually answer the question without answering the question. |
|
Quoted: Whacky conspiracy guy for asking if you believe the election was legitimate or stolen, huh? Well, thanks. You did just actually answer the question without answering the question. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..and the beat goes on! NATO would envelop Ukraine in defense pact under new plan pitched by big European members of Western alliance Germany, France and Britain seeking to encourage Ukrainian peace talks with Russia on anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked invasion Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia even if Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, officials from the three governments said. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week laid out a blueprint for an agreement to give Ukraine much broader access to advanced military equipment, weapons and ammunition to defend itself once the war ends. He said the plan should be on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual meeting in July. A year into the war, Paris and Berlin also support the initiative and all three governments see it as a way to boost Ukrainian confidence and give the government there an incentive to start talks with Russia, the French, German and British officials said. The officials were careful to say that any decision on when and under what conditions any peace talks start is entirely up to Ukraine. Sunak on Friday said the West should give Ukraine arms that would give it a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including warplanes. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nato-would-envelop-ukraine-in-defense-pact-under-new-plan-pitched-by-big-european-members-of-western-alliance-ab129e4a Explain what’s bad about that for anyone but Russia…. You yahoos keep making fun of my thread title and thread theme as I keep posting quotes, stories, etc… that continue backing up my initial claim. …and the beat goes on! Joining NATO was never mentioned in your article. What does “imminent” mean in your world? What is the time frame, or will you will be saying “any day now”, in a decade? Do you not understand the meaning of phrases like “defense pact”, “stronger ties”, and “broader access”? I’m hearing projections that “something” could happen that would open the door to NATO troops going to Ukraine to fight directly with Russia as early as this summer. That’s if things go on a “normal” projection without a dramatic escalation between now and then. Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here as direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal. Hopefully, you all can conclude what comes after that and so on. “Ukraine’s membership isn’t the goal here” Wait, your whole thread says it is the goal… “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is the goal” Whose goal? Please be specific. I just did, again. If you can’t understand my position on this and concerns resulting from this after almost 20 pages and numerous other threads, then perhaps you should just stick to watching cat videos. Ok, since you apparently didn’t understand the question, I’ll ask again: Who has the specific goal of “direct confrontation between NATO and Russia”? You won’t or can’t give a direct answer for some bizarre reason. NATO lead by Biden puppetmasters Who are the “puppet masters”? You act as if you’ve just logged into this site and heard this for the first time. Do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? Don’t dodge, answer the question. How would I know? Again do you believe Biden is actually making decisions? So a bunch of folks you can’t identify are so brilliant that they manipulated poor, innocent Russia into a fight in Ukraine, and similarly manipulated Ukraine into seeking aid, so that, somewhere down the line, they can trick poor Russia into starting a nuclear exchange because… reasons? And this nebulous threat is so important that you have to go on about it for this many pages. Stop deflecting. Answer my question. You’re the one that has all the answers, not me. You want me to answer questions about people that you think exist but can’t identify… I’m not privy to the inner workings of the Biden household. I’m absolutely sure a lot of folks vie for influence over the decisions made by the president. How much influence any particular individual, who you yourself can’t seem to identify, has is beyond my knowledge. If it wasn’t, maybe I’d start 20 page rants about nothing too. It was a simple yes or no question. Yes or No Thread sliding your own thread again? Weird. Ok, the answer is neither “yes”, nor “no”. It’s “I don’t know”. Read my post again. You don’t know, huh? Do you believe the election was legitimate or stolen? Can you report yourself for sliding your own thread? You’re kind of all over the place. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/69531/9FA413C3-07A0-4ED3-8E3A-2DC9ADD8936B-2727650.jpg It’s all related yet you either don’t see it or are intentionally deflecting. I answered your questions yet you avoid answering my questions. What are you so afraid of revealing about yourself? See the whacky conspiracy guy I posted above? You’re being that guy. What question of yours did I fail to answer? Whacky conspiracy guy for asking if you believe the election was legitimate or stolen, huh? Well, thanks. You did just actually answer the question without answering the question. Sorry man, guess the truth hurts. |
|
Quoted: You concisely prove my point. Thank you. The NATO treaty is ALL about collective defense. Your quote, which is not from the Treaty itself, says that "at the time," that threat was from the Soviet Union. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: You concisely prove my point. Thank you. The NATO treaty is ALL about collective defense. Your quote, which is not from the Treaty itself, says that "at the time," that threat was from the Soviet Union. They were thinking forward. Just in case aliens invaded or Brazil decided to get uppity and attack Europe. Good thinking, as usual. Totally not just another irrelevant manufactured "gotcha" or anything. You really believe they didn't have the Soviet Union in mind? Lol Well, NATO exists to contain Russian aggression (or any other Nation that threatens the alliance). When Article 5 was activated after 9/11, no one complained that it didn't count, because the attackers weren't Soviets. Again, NATO is not as necessary as it used to be because Russia is a hollowed out shell of its former self. One that can't even take part of Ukraine without losing a majority of it's conventional military strength. So far, anyway. I have no idea where this conflict is headed. I just don't want it to end up going nuclear and fuck up the lives of Americans all so that internet commando weirdos can get their vicarious victory selfie. |
|
Quoted: They were thinking forward. Just in case aliens invaded or Brazil decided to get uppity and attack Europe. Good thinking, as usual. Totally not just another irrelevant manufactured "gotcha" or anything. You really believe they didn't have the Soviet Union in mind? Lol View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: You concisely prove my point. Thank you. The NATO treaty is ALL about collective defense. Your quote, which is not from the Treaty itself, says that "at the time," that threat was from the Soviet Union. They were thinking forward. Just in case aliens invaded or Brazil decided to get uppity and attack Europe. Good thinking, as usual. Totally not just another irrelevant manufactured "gotcha" or anything. You really believe they didn't have the Soviet Union in mind? Lol Well, NATO exists to contain Russian aggression (or any other Nation that threatens the alliance). When Article 5 was activated after 9/11, no one complained that it didn't count, because the attackers weren't Soviets. Again, NATO is not as necessary as it used to be because Russia is a hollowed out shell of its former self. One that can't even take part of Ukraine without losing a majority of its conventional military strength. So far, anyway. That was short for “Russians” There was no confusion about the Russians being an adversary. We used to shoot at targets called “Ivan,” not Hans or Stan. 1989 had an effect on the nature of that adversarial relationship, but it didn’t end. It just pushed them back inside their own borders. Pretending otherwise is naive I have no idea where this conflict is headed. I just don't want it to end up going nuclear and fuck up the lives of Americans all so that internet commando weirdos can get their vicarious victory selfie. Ah yes, your weak straw man again. lol |
|
Quoted: Facts are facts. You want to pretend that Russia does not equal the Soviet Union. Ask the KGB guy who is do sad about the end of the Soviet Union.. Remember during the Cold War when we would refer to the Soviets as “Ruskis”? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Facts are facts. You want to pretend that Russia does not equal the Soviet Union. Ask the KGB guy who is do sad about the end of the Soviet Union.. Remember during the Cold War when we would refer to the Soviets as “Ruskis”? Russia does not equal the Soviet Union. I mean, that's just objective reality and elementary school geography... Russia may have been the brain, but now it's more like a head in a jar. Only with nuclear weapons and desperate to survive. That was short for “Russians” There was no confusion about the Russians being an adversary. We used to shoot at targets called “Ivan,” not Hans or Stan. It was a Hans a little while before it was Ivan. And it'll be something else in the future. NATO has already accomplished its mission. Russia is weak and dying. Is the mission for NATO now to completely destroy Russia, even if Russia doesn't attack a NATO member? I'm not sure they got the memo on that one. 1989 had an effect on the nature of that adversarial relationship, but it didn’t end. It just pushed them back inside their own borders. Pretending otherwise is naive. I never said it ended, and I'm not pretending otherwise. I said the need for NATO is less than it was at its inception, which is true, even by your own words. Why do you need to project so much? I didn't even write any of the shit you're claiming. Ah yes, your weak straw man again. lol Sure. Whatever you say, boss. |
|
Quoted: Facts are facts. You want to pretend that Russia does not equal the Soviet Union. Ask the KGB guy who is do sad about the end of the Soviet Union.. Remember during the Cold War when we would refer to the Soviets as “Ruskis”? That was short for “Russians” There was no confusion about the Russians being an adversary. We used to shoot at targets called “Ivan,” not Hans or Stan. 1989 had an effect on the nature of that adversarial relationship, but it didn’t end. It just pushed them back inside their own borders. Pretending otherwise is naive. Ah yes, your weak straw man again. lol View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You concisely prove my point. Thank you. The NATO treaty is ALL about collective defense. Your quote, which is not from the Treaty itself, says that "at the time," that threat was from the Soviet Union. They were thinking forward. Just in case aliens invaded or Brazil decided to get uppity and attack Europe. Good thinking, as usual. Totally not just another irrelevant manufactured "gotcha" or anything. You really believe they didn't have the Soviet Union in mind? Lol Well, NATO exists to contain Russian aggression (or any other Nation that threatens the alliance). When Article 5 was activated after 9/11, no one complained that it didn't count, because the attackers weren't Soviets. Again, NATO is not as necessary as it used to be because Russia is a hollowed out shell of its former self. One that can't even take part of Ukraine without losing a majority of its conventional military strength. So far, anyway. That was short for “Russians” There was no confusion about the Russians being an adversary. We used to shoot at targets called “Ivan,” not Hans or Stan. 1989 had an effect on the nature of that adversarial relationship, but it didn’t end. It just pushed them back inside their own borders. Pretending otherwise is naive I have no idea where this conflict is headed. I just don't want it to end up going nuclear and fuck up the lives of Americans all so that internet commando weirdos can get their vicarious victory selfie. Ah yes, your weak straw man again. lol I always referred to them as Soviets during the Cold War, like people referred to us as Americans since we are from the United States of America. |
|
How long is long therm? As long as it takes?
TommyRobinsonOfficial@TommyRobinsonOfficial 1h · Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO: ..Allies have agreed that Ukraine will become a member of our alliance...that is a long term perspective.. https://gab.com/TommyRobinsonOfficial/posts/109942599226343622 Unedited “I see that the future of Ukraine is to be a part of the European Union and also a member of NATO…” NATO Secretary General with the Prime Minister of Finland ???? Sanna Marin, 28 FEB 2023 |
|
Quoted: How long is long therm? As long as it takes? TommyRobinsonOfficial@TommyRobinsonOfficial 1h · Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO: ..Allies have agreed that Ukraine will become a member of our alliance...that is a long term perspective.. https://gab.com/TommyRobinsonOfficial/posts/109942599226343622 Unedited “I see that the future of Ukraine is to be a part of the European Union and also a member of NATO…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwd1JtOVy8k View Quote "In the future" and "imminent" are entirely different things. |
|
Quoted: You corrected your Drill Instructor when he sang this Jody?: “If I die on the Russian front! Bury me with a Russian grunt!” Or when you were taught you the Code of Conduct: “I am an American fighting man…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXp8SnXUvEo “Ivan Target”: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/0CEBB8CD-239E-4BB4-A950-1418D71CB785-2728373.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/681A17E8-46BD-4C9F-9DB3-C7CD88341BDF-2728375.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You concisely prove my point. Thank you. The NATO treaty is ALL about collective defense. Your quote, which is not from the Treaty itself, says that "at the time," that threat was from the Soviet Union. They were thinking forward. Just in case aliens invaded or Brazil decided to get uppity and attack Europe. Good thinking, as usual. Totally not just another irrelevant manufactured "gotcha" or anything. You really believe they didn't have the Soviet Union in mind? Lol Well, NATO exists to contain Russian aggression (or any other Nation that threatens the alliance). When Article 5 was activated after 9/11, no one complained that it didn't count, because the attackers weren't Soviets. Again, NATO is not as necessary as it used to be because Russia is a hollowed out shell of its former self. One that can't even take part of Ukraine without losing a majority of its conventional military strength. So far, anyway. That was short for “Russians” There was no confusion about the Russians being an adversary. We used to shoot at targets called “Ivan,” not Hans or Stan. 1989 had an effect on the nature of that adversarial relationship, but it didn’t end. It just pushed them back inside their own borders. Pretending otherwise is naive I have no idea where this conflict is headed. I just don't want it to end up going nuclear and fuck up the lives of Americans all so that internet commando weirdos can get their vicarious victory selfie. Ah yes, your weak straw man again. lol I always referred to them as Soviets during the Cold War, like people referred to us as Americans since we are from the United States of America. You corrected your Drill Instructor when he sang this Jody?: “If I die on the Russian front! Bury me with a Russian grunt!” Or when you were taught you the Code of Conduct: “I am an American fighting man…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXp8SnXUvEo “Ivan Target”: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/0CEBB8CD-239E-4BB4-A950-1418D71CB785-2728373.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/681A17E8-46BD-4C9F-9DB3-C7CD88341BDF-2728375.jpg The use of the term Jody to refer to a cadence is not normal in my community, nor did I ever hear it refers to as that at Boot, OCS or TBS. I heard cadences called that on the internet but not in the fleet as it was seen as an Army term similar to how we don’t refer to ever NCO Sgt and above as only Sgt and instead by their actual rank Those are what I have always called RETs (Reactive Targets) and I believe it is that in RFMSS and the various Range SoPs also, I think while using the pop up course at Ft Carson the range personnel from the Army called them Ivans but that was around 03-04 time frame. |
|
Quoted: The use of the term Jody to refer to a cadence is not normal in my community, nor did I ever hear it refers to as that at Boot, OCS or TBS. I heard cadences called that on the internet but not in the fleet as it was seen as an Army term similar to how we don’t refer to ever NCO Sgt and above as only Sgt and instead by their actual rank Those are what I have always called RETs (Reactive Targets) and I believe it is that in RFMSS and the various Range SoPs also, I think while using the pop up course at Ft Carson the range personnel from the Army called them Ivans but that was around 03-04 time frame. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You concisely prove my point. Thank you. The NATO treaty is ALL about collective defense. Your quote, which is not from the Treaty itself, says that "at the time," that threat was from the Soviet Union. They were thinking forward. Just in case aliens invaded or Brazil decided to get uppity and attack Europe. Good thinking, as usual. Totally not just another irrelevant manufactured "gotcha" or anything. You really believe they didn't have the Soviet Union in mind? Lol Well, NATO exists to contain Russian aggression (or any other Nation that threatens the alliance). When Article 5 was activated after 9/11, no one complained that it didn't count, because the attackers weren't Soviets. Again, NATO is not as necessary as it used to be because Russia is a hollowed out shell of its former self. One that can't even take part of Ukraine without losing a majority of its conventional military strength. So far, anyway. That was short for “Russians” There was no confusion about the Russians being an adversary. We used to shoot at targets called “Ivan,” not Hans or Stan. 1989 had an effect on the nature of that adversarial relationship, but it didn’t end. It just pushed them back inside their own borders. Pretending otherwise is naive I have no idea where this conflict is headed. I just don't want it to end up going nuclear and fuck up the lives of Americans all so that internet commando weirdos can get their vicarious victory selfie. Ah yes, your weak straw man again. lol I always referred to them as Soviets during the Cold War, like people referred to us as Americans since we are from the United States of America. You corrected your Drill Instructor when he sang this Jody?: “If I die on the Russian front! Bury me with a Russian grunt!” Or when you were taught you the Code of Conduct: “I am an American fighting man…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXp8SnXUvEo “Ivan Target”: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/0CEBB8CD-239E-4BB4-A950-1418D71CB785-2728373.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/681A17E8-46BD-4C9F-9DB3-C7CD88341BDF-2728375.jpg The use of the term Jody to refer to a cadence is not normal in my community, nor did I ever hear it refers to as that at Boot, OCS or TBS. I heard cadences called that on the internet but not in the fleet as it was seen as an Army term similar to how we don’t refer to ever NCO Sgt and above as only Sgt and instead by their actual rank Those are what I have always called RETs (Reactive Targets) and I believe it is that in RFMSS and the various Range SoPs also, I think while using the pop up course at Ft Carson the range personnel from the Army called them Ivans but that was around 03-04 time frame. I guess I’m old. In the 1980s, those were “Ivan” targets on Marine ranges, and Drill Instructors and Marines sang about “Jody.” Regardless, I think we’ve established that “going toe to toe with the Ruskis” and talk of “Russians” coming through the Fulda Gap was interchangeable with “Soviet.” But of course, you know this. Not sure why you’d be so pedantic on a point that is universally known. |
|
|
Quoted: "In the future" and "imminent" are entirely different things. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: How long is long therm? As long as it takes? TommyRobinsonOfficial@TommyRobinsonOfficial 1h · Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO: ..Allies have agreed that Ukraine will become a member of our alliance...that is a long term perspective.. https://gab.com/TommyRobinsonOfficial/posts/109942599226343622 Unedited “I see that the future of Ukraine is to be a part of the European Union and also a member of NATO…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwd1JtOVy8k "In the future" and "imminent" are entirely different things. And what I wrote in the thread title and your reading comprehension of what I wrote are two different things, too. That push did start immediately after Kissinger’s statement and continues to this day as noted by the press conference. Every time a public mention of plans for Ukraine to enter NATO is made, it’s like showing a red flag to a bull as it only prolongs the war and assures that no negotiations or even a compromise will be possible, at least for now. |
|
I think I'm noticing a trend.
Answer truthfully, where would you let Russia touch you in the interest of preventing nuclear war? Like, if it's below the waist is that game over, just launch the missiles? Just curious how willing some would be, if it saved a single nuke from being launched. The idea Putin just wants to be homies, and since his military is obvious shit there's no way Russia can fuck with us is bizarre. A good example, do you think Russia made any effort to play into the "Russian collusion" baloney in the interest of destabilizing our internal politics? Like, maybe by having an intelligence asset ask Trump questions at a town hall that would provide a "gotchya!" moment for Rachel Maddow? Just one, small example. |
|
|
Quoted: I think I'm noticing a trend. Answer truthfully, where would you let Russia touch you in the interest of preventing nuclear war? Like, if it's below the waist is that game over, just launch the missiles? Just curious how willing some would be, if it saved a single nuke from being launched. The idea Putin just wants to be homies, and since his military is obvious shit there's no way Russia can fuck with us is bizarre. A good example, do you think Russia made any effort to play into the "Russian collusion" baloney in the interest of destabilizing our internal politics? Like, maybe by having an intelligence asset ask Trump questions at a town hall that would provide a "gotchya!" moment for Rachel Maddow? Just one, small example. View Quote Launch the nukes. Moving on. Which do you think has had more of an effect on the American public. Russian IO or FBI/DHS/Twitter/Facebook IO ? |
|
If Ukraine meets the parameters for membership, sure, but prior to the invasion they did NOT and a lot of things haven't changed in terms of that nation's corruption issues.
Only a few weeks back Ukraine's Deputy Minister of Defense had to resign over corruption allegations. https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-deputy-defense-minister-vyacheslav-shapovalov-resign-corruption-war-zelenskyy/ Their military is still not up to par for NATO standards. The USA has been trying to help them for decades now to get up to par and they haven't done so. Before the 2014 invasion their military was frankly pathetic in terms of equipment, structure, and leadership. They've made some serious gains since 2020, but they've got a long way to go before their an asset to NATO and not a liability even if they push Russia out. I know the media like to make Ukraine out to be some amazing military force, but frankly they're not up to par with NATO standards even today. I hope that they will get up to par, especially for Ukraine's sake, but they're not there yet. They need FAR better officers, general, and flag officers as well. |
|
Quoted: Launch the nukes. Moving on. Which do you think has had more of an effect on the American public. Russian IO or FBI/DHS/Twitter/Facebook IO ? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I think I'm noticing a trend. Answer truthfully, where would you let Russia touch you in the interest of preventing nuclear war? Like, if it's below the waist is that game over, just launch the missiles? Just curious how willing some would be, if it saved a single nuke from being launched. The idea Putin just wants to be homies, and since his military is obvious shit there's no way Russia can fuck with us is bizarre. A good example, do you think Russia made any effort to play into the "Russian collusion" baloney in the interest of destabilizing our internal politics? Like, maybe by having an intelligence asset ask Trump questions at a town hall that would provide a "gotchya!" moment for Rachel Maddow? Just one, small example. Launch the nukes. Moving on. Which do you think has had more of an effect on the American public. Russian IO or FBI/DHS/Twitter/Facebook IO ? Russian IO. It is successfully dividing and neutering the right. If it continues 2024 is going to be a bad scene. Biden has horribly fucked up the entire Ukraine situation from shit deterrence to slow rolling aid. Instead of focusing on how to effectively represent clear American interests, half the right is now gargling the spiritual balls of Neville Chamberlin. |
|
https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/1630696423447511045?s=61&t=9wQyyNygsvtQm1CZGYh1wg
Your sons will have to fight in Ukraine. Zelensky |
|
Quoted: https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/1630696423447511045?s=61&t=9wQyyNygsvtQm1CZGYh1wg Your sons will have to fight in Ukraine. Zelensky View Quote He’s a lying piece of shit and should be considered an enemy of the United States for his words and actions. Zelenskyy blames Russia after 'unintentional' Poland missile strike | USA TODAY #Shorts Zelenskyy Insists Missile Strike In Poland Didn't Come From Ukraine |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.