US and NATO escalation of conflict with Russia is leading to war

Status
Not open for further replies.

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
47,670
6g5q1a03o4i81.jpg


Namibia is fooked, Cape Town for the win.
 

The Trutherizer

Executive Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
8,257
That's how we get to where we are today as no one wishes to listen

MOSCOW, March 1. /TASS/. Moscow believes that obtaining legally binding security guarantees from NATO members is of paramount importance, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in a video address to the Disarmament Conference.
"[Our] Western colleagues have not yet shown any willingness to provide Russia with long-term legally binding security guarantees. <...> For us, achieving these objectives is of fundamental importance," Lavrov emphasized.
The minister stressed that the issue here is refusing NATO’s expansion any further, and abandoning the "Bucharest formula" (2008 Bucharest Summit - TASS) that sees Ukraine and Georgia becoming members of the US-led military bloc. "Western countries should refrain from establishing military facilities on the territory of former USSR states that are not members of the alliance, including the use of their infrastructure for conducting any military activity. It is necessary to return NATO’s military capabilities, including strike [capabilities], and NATO infrastructure to the state of 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was adopted," Lavrov concluded.

That was today.

Russia would never let NATO dictate which countries it can ally with.
Neither will NATO allow the reverse. Ever.

Listening is one thing. Understanding, reason and fairness clearly another.

NATO-Russia Founding Act
It set up a new forum: the "NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council" (PJC) as a venue for consultations, cooperation and consensus building. There was no provision granting NATO or Russia any veto powers over the actions of the other. NATO said it had no plans to station nuclear weapons in the new member states or send in new permanent military forces. The parties stated they did not see each other as adversaries, and, "based on an enduring political commitment undertaken at the highest political level, will build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security"


I MEAN THEY CAN TRY to get what they are talking about.
BUT MAYBE they should not have invaded a fellow member of the UN to try and strongarm NATO into doing it.
AND MAYBE they should not have put their nuclear arsenal on maximum alert and threatened to move nukes into Belarus as part of that tactic.



"RUSSIA STRONK" and "RUSSIA BRUTAL" is not a valid negotiation tactic!
 

PrimeSteak

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
15,117
but ukraine does have a nazi issue.
No, it doesn't, it's like saying cause there are still a few oomies flying the old flag and wearing AWB uniform while blasting Die Stem that South Africa has a far-right problem.
So you respond to this with an OPINION PIECE?
You do realise the speaker of the vid is the LEADER OF C14 (one of the NAZI GROUPS you mentioned before)? And in the vid he's trying to say without the neo-Nazis, Euromaidan would've failed? What was the point of posting this vid exactly?
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
55,031
zero my guy, they have zero seats in Parliament...


I don't always like to quote Wiki, but here are their article,


In the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election all major Ukrainian right-wing parties formed a nationwide united party list with the political parties Svoboda, National Corps, the Governmental Initiative of Yarosh, and the Right Sector. However, the resulting coalition only managed to win 2.15% of the popular vote, and since the coalition failed to pass the 5% threshold it gained no parliamentary seats. No far-right parties gained seats in the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine's parliament), as they all failed to win any single-mandate constituency seat.

the contribution's source is well summarised in the Pravda,


Obviously, many here are in the view that it was all illegitimate, but are unable to substantiate their claims.
 

Vorastra

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
14,117

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
55,031
Hardly an unbiased report from a site which refers to itself as ' those of purely French origin'.

Legal Notice​

This blog is edited by Tilak RAJ.
1203/10 Govind Puri, kalkaji, New Delhi 110019, India

:ROFL:
 

Tun@

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
4,118
That was today.

Russia would never let NATO dictate which countries it can ally with.
Neither will NATO allow the reverse. Ever.

Listening is one thing. Understanding, reason and fairness clearly another.

NATO-Russia Founding Act



I MEAN THEY CAN TRY to get what they are talking about.
BUT MAYBE they should not have invaded a fellow member of the UN to try and strongarm NATO into doing it.
AND MAYBE they should not have put their nuclear arsenal on maximum alert and threatened to move nukes into Belarus as part of that tactic.



"RUSSIA STRONK" and "RUSSIA BRUTAL" is not a valid negotiation tactic!

Yes that release was today but look back before any bullets got fired & they were asking for similar & just got ignored. This is just an east/west tug or war with Ukraine in the middle.
See here for some catch up - Dec 17th - over 2 months ago
Where were all the great leaders after then discussing this? nada

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top