LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

What is Putin's objective....it's not primarily sizing Ukraine

pecksniff said:
But, Moldova is nowhere near Crimea.
Click to expand...
dunno :unsure:, but that's what he's reported as claiming. In effect, it's a 'takeover' of a breakaway area called Transnistria which is already kinda russian but not recognised internationally as anything other than a part of Moldova. This is the second such claim i've seen, one dating back must be at least a month back if not more.
 
pecksniff said:
But, Moldova is nowhere near Crimea.
Click to expand...

in what sense?

also, have you noticed the weird difference?
apparently, and to Putin's shock, Russian sppeakers from East Ukraine didn't meet his army with flowers, they chose to fight for Ukraine instead
whereas, word goes Transnistrians would join Russia & fight to break away from Moldova in a heartbeat
 

​

Trump says he threatened not to defend NATO against Russia​


Former president Donald Trump on Thursday offered his most explicit statement to date that he threatened not to defend NATO allies from attacks by Russia.
Appearing at an event held by the Heritage Foundation in Florida, Trump claimed that he told fellow NATO leaders that he might not abide by
NATO’s Article 5 collective-defense clause if those countries didn’t pay more for the alliance.
Click to expand...
A fellow leader “said, ‘Does that mean that you won’t protect us in case — if we don’t pay, you won’t protect us from Russia’ —
was the Soviet Union, but now Russia,” Trump said. “I said, ‘That’s exactly what it means.’ ”
Trump implied that it was a negotiating tactic. “Now if I said, ‘No, I don’t mean that,’ then why would they pay? So somebody had to say it,” he said.

Trump said he was “amazed” the conversation hadn’t leaked during his presidency.

The comments — an apparent reference to NATO’s 2018 summit in Brussels, which Trump shook up with his threats —
were the most extensive account from Trump about his mind-set and intentions at the time. They don’t fully jibe with how
others described the conversations then, although they may still be an accurate window into how he felt.
Leaders and others who were inside the room at that summit said Trump’s threats to them were actually less explicit than the former
president recounted in his Thursday speech. Trump said that if countries did not live up to their spending targets by the end of 2018,
he would “do his own thing,” according to interviews in the hours after the meeting with two officials familiar with the conversation.
Click to expand...
 
Lol.....that is warped. We all have each other's back....together. Not apart.
icanhelp1 said:
Little secret, if western Europe payed an equitable amount for their own defense they wouldn't need the US.
Click to expand...
 
ll74 said:
Yah...people literally want to join NATO because it's not about that.
Click to expand...
It's always hilarious when the willfully uninformed just say some random words in hopes of no one calling them on their bullshit.
 
ll74 said:
Lol.....that is warped. We all have each other's back....together.
Click to expand...
No doubt, however, for an alliance to be fully functional it requires that all members abide by the contract and pay their agreed upon share. Just think of the position they'd be in today had they payed the agreed upon share from the start. Russia may never had invaded Ukraine for fear of reprisal from a much stronger alliance.
 
icanhelp1 said:
No doubt, however, for an alliance to be fully functional it requires that all members abide by the contract and pay their agreed upon share. Just think of the position they'd be in today had they payed the agreed upon share from the start. Russia may never had invaded Ukraine for fear of reprisal from a much stronger alliance.
Click to expand...
A defensive pack understands that not all members have the capability to defend themselves and certainly understand that leadership, budgets and governments rotate over time, which sometimes means they won't be sending the same amount of money.

Diplomacy is not as binary as the right makes it.
 
ll74 said:
A defensive pack understands that not all members have the capability to defend themselves and certainly understand that leadership, budgets and governments rotate over time, which sometimes means they won't be sending the same amount of money.

Diplomacy is not as binary as the right makes it.
Click to expand...
You of all people understand what a contract is. 2% of GDP is fair and equitable. Germany being the richest was the country who renege the most. Missing the target can be overlooked on occasion. Not paying a fair share doesn't mean that the US should always pick up the slack.
 
icanhelp1 said:
You of all people understand what a contract is. 2% of GDP is fair and equitable. Germany being the richest was the country who renege the most. Missing the target can be overlooked on occasion. Not paying a fair share doesn't mean that the US should always pick up the slack.
Click to expand...
Yes, and agreements ebb and flow over time. If your only focus is the bill then I get your position. There's a reason why Finland and Sweden want to join.....and I'm sure they understand the cost and deficiencies.

Our global economy needs stability and that stability favors us the most.
 
ll74 said:
Yes, and agreements ebb and flow over time. If your only focus is the bill then I get your position. There's a reason why Finland and Sweden want to join.....and I'm sure they understand the cost and deficiencies.

Our global economy needs stability and that stability favors us the most.
Click to expand...
The alliance has merit, that's not the point. The alliance is only as strong as the guarantors meeting the agreed upon contract. I focus on our trillions in debt and the importance of all nations picking up their share of the responsibility, God knows we've done it.

If a nation only pays 1% in one year that shouldn't excuse paying 3% the following year. I'm sure had we not payed our share we would've been called dead beats by them fucking better than thou European stuffed shirts who used every opportunity to rail on us.
 
icanhelp1 said:
The alliance has merit, that's not the point. The alliance is only as strong as the guarantors meeting the agreed upon contract. I focus on our trillions in debt and the importance of all nations picking up their share of the responsibility, God knows we've done it.

If a nation only pays 1% in one year that shouldn't excuse paying 3% the following year. I'm sure had we not payed our share we would've been called dead beats by them fucking better than thou European stuffed shirts who used every opportunity to rail on us.
Click to expand...
I get your point and I disagree strongly. Doesn't matter who pays what..it's either effective or it's not. We have the best and biggest armed forces in the world...that's why we lead. If you don't want us to lead, then let's spend less on defense
 
ll74 said:
I get your point and I disagree strongly. Doesn't matter who pays what..it's either effective or it's not. We have the best and biggest armed forces in the world...that's why we lead. If you don't want us to lead, then let's spend less on defense
Click to expand...
Our defense spending is not arbitrary in nature. We have two existential threats to deal with. Just our being acts as a deterrent. My point is the NATO alliance may have to stand on its own should we find ourselves in simultaneous conflicts with both China and Russia.
 
icanhelp1 said:
Our defense spending is not arbitrary in nature. We have two existential threats to deal with. Just our being acts as a deterrent. My point is the NATO alliance may have to stand on its own should we find ourselves in simultaneous conflicts with both China and Russia.
Click to expand...
NATO will be there for both if they exist....because that's the reason for the alliance.....to defend against threats to the countries in the alliance.
 
ll74 said:
NATO will be there for both if they exist....because that's the reason for the alliance.....to defend against threats to the countries in the alliance.
Click to expand...
Would nato have the horsepower to come to our defense in the event of a Chinese conflict. The answer is a big fat NO!!! They fail big time in logistics Maybe the UK and Canada but western Europe, they'd be preoccupied with Russia. Western Europe does not have the equipment to take on Russia alone. They are just realizing this weakness now and as usual we're filling in the void. We have a huge shortage of combat infantry in our own ranks.
 
icanhelp1 said:
Would nato have the horsepower to come to our defense in the event of a Chinese conflict. The answer is a big fat NO!!! They fail big time in logistics Maybe the UK and Canada but western Europe, they'd be preoccupied with Russia. Western Europe does not have the equipment to take on Russia alone. They are just realizing this weakness now and as usual we're filling in the void. We have a huge shortage of combat infantry in our own ranks.
Click to expand...
The potential recruits are all Euros. Offer them sex as a signing bonus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rightguide
Why Trump's Alaska Trip Was A Master Stroke
6 7 8
Replies
189
Views
3K
ll74
ll74
P
What will come of the Ukraine peace talks?
Replies
24
Views
607
rachaelwillguideyou
R
Rightguide
This Is The Deep State Trying To Start WWIII Before Trump Is Sworn In
4 5 6
Replies
125
Views
3K
HisArpy
HisArpy
P
Adam Schiff places hold on Ed Martin's nomination to be D.C. U.S. attorney
Replies
5
Views
240
butters
butters
A
Why Is China Assisting Russia?
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
AceDesSpades
A
Back
Top