Im not sure prominence is suitable phraseology for this crisis. Erection might be more apt.

You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. :rofl:

The fact is that Russia was attacked, invaded, and occupied by the Mongols. It fought back, it defeated the Mongols, and took their territory. Very simple and easy to understand, even for uneducated NATO activists.

As for Siberia, most of it was uninhabited land that the Russians gradually colonized and took over, no big deal. It certainly doesn't compare with England occupying India, America, Africa, Australia, and enslaving hundreds of millions of people for no reason.

In any case, Russia went on to become one of the greatest nations on earth – unlike certain other countries that never achieved anything, hence their envy and hatred of everything Russian ....



Russia tried to conquer India? When? You mean after the Portuguese, the French, and the British had already got their hands on it?

Plus, NATO secretary general Stoltenberg said it's OK for Turkey to invade Kurdish territories because Turkey has "legitimate security concerns":

Minister Cavusoglu and I also discussed Turkey´s ongoing operation in Northern Syria … Turkey has legitimate security concerns … Turkey is a great power in this great region and with great power comes great responsibility… - NATO Joint press conference, 11 Oct. 2019

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_169576.htm?selectedLocale=en

And I don't see you guys campaigning for China to give back Tibet or for Turkey to return Cyprus and other territories stolen from the Greeks, Kurds, Armenians, and many other nations.

So, I don't find your arguments very credible or convincing at all, to be honest.

The "Biscuits with Gravy" sounds like the tastier dish to order on that menu, especially after Lavrov just said that Hitler probably had Jewish blood and that self-hating Jews are the most dangerous kind.

Pogroms are back! Such fun for the entire family.

Seriously, where did all the roubles go!? — Count Timothy von Icarus

London.

The fact is that Russia was attacked, invaded, and occupied by the Mongols. It fought back, it defeated the Mongols, and took their territory. Very simple and easy to understand, even for uneducated NATO activists.

As for Siberia, most of it was uninhabited land that the Russians gradually colonized and took over, no big deal. — Apollodorus

Delirious ramblings from the sites Putin troll.

Russians lived in only a small part that would be then the Russian Empire even before the Mongol invasion. Khazars, Pechenegs, Mordvins, Volga Bulgars or Finnic people were not Russians. Samarkand or Dusanbe aren't 'uninhabited' lands in Siberia. Crimea or the area of 'Novorossiya' weren't part of Russian lands either.

And Siberia being uninhabited and it's colonization was no big deal? Similar rhetoric could be heard from Americans in the early 20th Century of "The West" being this largely uninhabited land, which was destined to the young nation and all for their picking and their Manifest Destiny. Or as you put it, No big deal.

And I don't see you guys campaigning for China to give back Tibet or for Turkey to return Cyprus and other territories stolen from the Greeks, Kurds, Armenians, and many other nations. — Apollodorus

Dude, Russia is a direct existential threat to the West (primarily to the EU), given its nuclear arsenal and related repeated threats, its political infiltration in support of populist movements in the West, its veto power at the UN, its energetic blackmailing, its military presence in the Middle East and in Africa, its power concentration in one man's hands, and Putin's declared ambitions to establish a new world order with China and directly antagonise the West. You can continue your intellectual masturbation over the hypocrisy of the West all you want, but at this point the West should not tolerate a terrorist state that big that aggressive that close. "Very simple and easy to understand".

:100:

Siberia was mostly uninhabited, not the same for Bukhara, Khiva, Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kishi, the large area belonging to China when Russia took it by gun point (which they still claim as theirs), etc. Not to mention their later conquest and repression of East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. Nor were areas where people who spoke Russian or mutually intelligible languages necissarily pleased about becoming part of the Russian state (e.g., Novgorod, the Cossacks, etc.).

The position of Ukrainians and Belarussians is perhaps analogous to Scotland or Wales vis-á-vis England (long history of integration, but also fraught with conflict). Although, in some ways it is more like Bohemia/the modern Czech Republic and "Greater Germany in terms of a greater/longer lived linguistic gap. Then again it's also more like Ireland and England in some ways, where the smaller state has not only been conquered by the larger, but subject to horrific acts by them that drastically changed the smaller nation's development (such that, even with migration, the population of Ireland is STILL below what it was before the Potato Famine, during which England continued to export food from Ireland at gun point, something Russia did to Finland to a lesser extent during the same blight). It's similar right down to nationalists in the smaller state being relatively cool with the Germans despite the huge war because they wanted out of the forced union.

Plus, the fact remains that the dominant world power today is America. Germany was eliminated as an obstacle to American hegemony, and now it is Russia's turn to be eliminated, by economic, financial, or military means.

Isolationism was very popular in the US . It had an absolutely tiny army before WWI and one that was still quite small before World War II. The US entry into WWII came because Japan attacked the United States. It's an open question if Pearl Harbor would have given Roosevelt the ammo he needed to join the war in Europe, he certainly wanted to, but we'll never know because Germany declared war on the United States.

The whole Mearsheimer, offensive realism model of rising powers taking out any potential rivals makes no sense with the actual contingencies of history. The US was the largest economy in the world by 1880, 1890 at the latest, but didn't go around annexing territories it easily could have (e.g. Canada or the rest of Mexico). At the end of the Civil War, the mobilized Union Army was completely capable of destroying anything Britain could get across the Atlantic, but the US essentially demilitarized outside of its navy. It had an army the size of Serbia's in 1914 despite having a population dwarfing every other great power except Russia and the highest per capita GDP to fund an army of any power.

It also doesn't explain the US doing all it could to get China into international organizations like the WTO, or spending trillions to develop China's industrial capacity. Tom Christensen, who I got to talk to on the subject has a pointed question for this topic: "what country has done more to assist the rise of China than the US?"

His book on this is illustrative. Between huge amounts of capital investment and major technology transfers, the US played a major role in helping China develop.

Being a China hawk was not nearly as popular until the Obama years. In the 1990s the US was supposed to worry about a reunified Germany and Japan's astronomic growth. That's why 80s sci-fi has Japanese megacorps running everything around this time.

US policymakers really appear to have believed their own rhetoric about free markets and economic development leading inexorably to pressure for democratic institutions.

Hopes for Russia were high too. The whole idea of the US being so scared of Russia that it was sabotaging it after the fall of the USSR makes no real strategic sense. Why wouldn't the US want a liberalized Russia, one in the EU even? It would give liberal democracies enough of a share of the global energy market to be able to push OPEC around to some degree. China's new military hardware is mostly licensed and modified Russian equipment. If Russia is on board with the liberal states, then the problem of arms control gets far easier, as do worries about Chinese military development.

Russia still being a peer competitor with the US or EU is a Russian fever dream, as their performance in Ukraine shows. Less their nuclear arsenal, they'd have to seriously worry about Poland or Romania alone settling old historical scores with them.

But then again, you don't exactly expect clear-eyed analysis from a guy who got into power setting up terrorist attacks on his own countries apartment buildings, so there you go...

... , Russia is a direct existential threat to the West (primarily to the EU), ... — neomac

The United States and their meddling in Russia's backyard with Europe as its forward pawn is what is an existential threat to Europe.

So in all fairness it's the combination of two nuclear parties that compete for influence, one of which we're unfortunately aligned with, that results in an existential threat to Europe.

their meddling in Russia's backyard with Europe as its forward pawn — Tzeentch

Russia is Europe's backyard.

The evidence is the expansionism of US-created instruments of US foreign policy like the EU and NATO. If an entity is officially expanding, it makes little sense to deny that it is expanding.

EU is an instrument of US foreign policy? This is evidence of your wearing of anti US tinted glasses. This weakens your case.

Regarding NATO, it has expanded in Europe. I refer you a second time to my reply to Streetlight, that you didn’t address.

“ I draw your attention back to the theatre of Eastern Europe. What is happening here is a reordering of coalition/allegiance between states which used to be either members of, or influenced by the USSR. Any discussion of the Ukraine crisis which doesn’t place this process at the heart of the issue is entirely missing the point.”

Any expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe is part of this process. It is not as part of an anti Russian master plan, or plan for world domination.

I think it is better to omit the Normans than to omit everything else in European history. But I don’t think I “omitted” them. The British Empire was built by the United Kingdom regardless of the ethnic group that was in charge of it.

If you ever find yourself looking into the history of Britain, I would suggest you consider how the history was written by the winners to paint them in a positive light. The Normans are the last conquerors of Britain and we are still living under the history they wrote and the institutions they and their decedents introduced.

Nonsense. The British Empire was a capitalist as well as imperialist entity. Imperialism can perfectly well be a manifestation of capitalism. Ditto the desire of British capitalists to exploit Russia’s natural resources.

You clearly are equating anything emanating from the US, or the U.K. as imperialist expansionism. Can you distinguish between socio cultural movements which are popular and adopted by people in far away countries and the invasion of independent states by the US and U.K.?

Those rose tinted glasses again.

So in all fairness it's the combination of two nuclear parties that compete for influence, one of which we're unfortunately aligned with, that results in an existential threat to Europe. — Benkei

Not as unfortunate as if we were aligned with Russia: we needed NATO to protect us from the Soviet Union as much as Ukraine needed NATO to protect themselves from Russia (Ukrainians preferred Nazism to Russian assimilation, go figure!). And there are self-aware European nuclear parties too (https://www.france24.com/en/20200207-macron-unveils-nuclear-doctrine-warns-eu-cannot-remain-spectators-in-arms-race).

Europe as its forward pawn — Tzeentch

That's the geopolitical game, dear Pollyanna. Any pawn must play its role as a pawn as best as possible to get a chance to become a queen.

That's an interesting dichotomy. Where have I suggested we should be aligned with Russia or that NATO's role during the Cold War was misplaced?

Your assumption Ukraine needed NATO against Russia is one that results from ignoring the view of principled neutrality that has been argued by plenty of experts since the late 90s. If the US had no imperialist designs on Ukraine, this war wouldn't have happened.

Maybe it's a longer-term plan of Putin's after all to connect the Donbas and Transnistria, enrolling them in Russia.
(At least I imagine it's on his wish list.)
Extending Kremlin's influence power control takes a bit of strategizing.
Meanwhile, a wrench or two has been thrown into the cogs.


, this is as good a time as any to tell the Ukrainians that they live in Putin's backyard.
I'd recommend not doing it while in Ukraine tho'.

Maybe it's a longer-term plan of Putin's after all to connect the Donbas and Transnistria, enrolling them in Russia.

Yes, it would isolate Ukraine from the Black Sea. Leaving Ukraine to transport their grain and fertiliser exports through the EU via rail. It would probably destroy their main market for grain in Africa. It would certainly push up the prices in both commodities.

It could cause Ukraine to join the EU and NATO as a response. Resulting in a new iron curtain between Russia and Europe. This would be bad news for the prosperity of Russia. Putin will be dead soon (he doesn’t look at all well), before the Russian people realise what he has done.

To be honest, I haven't been really watching this thread since it started getting so long that it is almost impossible to keep up with. However, I have been watching a few YouTube and I wanted to post/share the links to them for the other members on this forum might be able to get additional insights on some of the reasons and/or issues Russian decided to invade Ukraine and start the war that is currently going on:

The Origins of Russian Authoritarianism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8ZqBLcIvw0



Russian PROPAGANDA against Ukraine explained | Why Russians don't protest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B9diixt1L4


THIS explains why Russia starts insane wars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6UiEXrVrvg


These maps explain why Putin is invading Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r23aYe0Mw1w


Understanding the War in Ukraine (1) - General
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhwfC_Vh4DI


Did NATO Really "Betray" Russia?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg0OWPjdLzU

That's an interesting dichotomy. Where have I suggested we should be aligned with Russia or that NATO's role during the Cold War was misplaced? — Benkei

Where have I suggested that you suggested it? You wrote: "So in all fairness it's the combination of two nuclear parties that compete for influence, one of which we're unfortunately aligned with". Your evaluation was partial, so "in all fairness" I completed it: would we be more fortunate or equally fortunate to be aligned with Russia? Hell, no.

Your assumption Ukraine needed Russia is one that results from ignoring the view of principled neutrality that has been argued by plenty of experts since the late 90s. — Benkei

My assumption is that “plenty of experts since the late 90s” weren't enough to convince many Eastern European countries about "principled neutrality", including Ukrainians b/c on 7 February 2019, the Ukrainian parliament voted with a majority of 334 out of 385 to change the Ukrainian constitution to help Ukraine to join NATO and the European Union, despite all western reluctance to accept Ukraine b/c of Russia and the weakening of NATO. Maybe EU and Ukraine do not act like pawns, nor the US and Russia are acting like chess masters, as much as post-Cold War experts have figured out.

If the US had no imperialist designs on Ukraine, this war wouldn't have happened. — Benkei

Who knows? All I know is that Ukrainians have been fighting for their independence and self-determination against Russian central governments for centuries. That they were victim of a genocide under Soviet ruling. That they preferred the Nazis to the Soviets. Now the EU and NATO to the Russians. And Russian imperialism pre-dates the American one and isn't aging well either given the delirious talks one can hear from certain prominent Russian putinists.
Besides, since "in all fairness it's the combination of two nuclear parties that compete for influence" then you could claim at best if the US and Russia had no imperialist designs on Ukraine, this war wouldn't have happened.

Dude, Russia is a direct existential threat to the West (primarily to the EU), given its nuclear arsenal — neomac

Dude, Russia has had a nuclear arsenal for decades and I don't see Russia invading Paris, London, or New York!

Plus, here's an official Pentagon statement:

We continue to monitor their nuclear capabilities every day the best we can and we do not assess that there is a threat of the use of nuclear weapons and no threat to NATO territory

U.S. sees no threat of Russia using nuclear weapons despite rhetoric - Reuters

Maybe you live in some remote area where there is no news or they can't read? :grin:



Nah, IMO claims like “Russia occupied Finland” as some kind of evidence that Russia is “evil”, aren’t very credible at all.

The reality is that Russia occupied Finland after Finland had been under Swedish occupation for like 600 years! And no one labels Sweden “evil”.

Ditto the claim that Russia “occupied Central Asia”, which ignores the fact that the Mongols had invaded and occupied the same area plus Russia, Eastern and Central Europe, the Mid East, Persia, India, and China.

The Mongols murdered, raped, enslaved, and sold into slavery millions of innocent people.

The Mongol Empire, by 1300 covered large parts of Eurasia. Historians regard the Mongol devastation as one of the deadliest episodes in history.

Mongol invasions and conquests – Wikipedia

The fires are burning beyond the river— The Tatars (Mongols) are dividing their captives. Our village is burnt. And our property plundered. Old mother is sabred. And my dear is taken into captivity.

- Ukrainian Folk Song, A. Kashchenko, Opovidannia pro slavne Viis’ko Zaporoz’ke nizove

From their base in Crimea, the Mongols (Tatars) kept raiding Russian and other Slavic territories until Russia took Crimea back in 1783.

The Mongol devastation was carried on for centuries by the Turks who belonged to the same Mongol hordes and were given to the same destructive and genocidal practices:

Fall of Constantinople – Wikipedia

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe - Wikipedia

10 Little-Known Facts From The Crimean Slave Trade

I don’t see how anyone can justify the destruction, the mass murder, and the genocide perpetrated by the Mongols and Turks.

I think the evidence rather indicates that the Russians saved European civilization (a) by pacifying the Mongols and making sure they could pose no threat in the future, and (b) by fighting the Turks from 1568 to 1916.

History of the Russo-Turkish wars – Wikipedia

I think most people agree that Russia itself became an important promoter of European culture with great architecture, music, and literature. After Greece and Germany, Russia is probably Europe’s greatest civilization.

Obviously, some Westerners seem to believe that guns, drugs, violence, and posing on Instagram constitute "cultural progress", but I think there are good reasons to disagree.

In any case, there is no point worrying or arguing over it.



I suggest you take a look at the board of the British South Africa Company (BSAC): the Duke of Abercorn, Alfred Beit, Herbert Canning, George Cawston, Horace Farquhar, the Duke of Fife, Lord Gifford, Albert Grey, C. J. Rhodes.

And their main financial backers included Beit and Lord Rothschild:

The BSAC was an amalgamation of a London-based group headed by Lord Gifford and George Cawston and backed financially by Baron Nathan de Rothschild, and Rhodes and his South African associates including Alfred Beit with the resources of the De Beers Syndicate and Gold Fields of South Africa.

British South Africa Company – Wikipedia

Of course, there were some individuals of Norman extraction among the imperialists, but even they were hardly your "pure-bred Normans". The Norman element would have been increasingly diluted over the centuries.

Churchill for one prided himself on being "Anglo-Saxon" and even got his mother to run a propaganda paper for the "Norman" elites, called The Anglo-Saxon Review.

In any case, it was still England (i.e., the United Kingdom) as an imperialist entity that built the largest empire in history which, moreover, was based on slavery and exploitation of other nations. But you are free to think otherwise. It makes no difference to me.

If the US had no imperialist designs on Ukraine, this war wouldn't have happened. — Benkei

Nonsense, Benkei.

Just try for a moment the idea that not everything revolves around the US.

Moldova had no intensions of joining NATO, it's non-aligned by it's constitution. But because it was a weak state, Russia intervened there, started a war there as there is an ethnic Russian minority, it could create a puppet state there where it has as "peacekeepers" Russian troops. And now Russia has huge influence over the country of Moldova. The same EXACT method it has used in Georgia and in Ukraine. And nothing to do with your goddam US. No American President promised anything to Moldova.

Hence your idea is as fallacious, illogical and as biased as would be as the idea that the US only intervened in Central America and the Caribbean because of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Which anybody would understand is pure bullshit. The US intervened in Central American and the Caribbean before the Cold War and likely would have continued to intervened in the area with or without the existence of the Soviet Union or the Cold War. Because it has it's "interests" there. Just like Russia has here.

But where the Americans afraid of Central American states collapsing as Dominoes and turning Communist? Hell Yeah!!! But that still doesn't change their assholery in the region. Just as it doesn't change the fact that Russia is an aggressive bully towards every former state of the Soviet Union that isn't under it's control, even if it scared about NATO. It would be similar or even worse without NATO.

Russia is trying to grab back every of it's former state of the empire it possibly can. It has never, repeat never put aside it's imperial ambitions. It hasn't had that moment what the UK understood after Suez, that it wasn't anymore the Greatest Power. No, Putin is truly making Russia great again, because it has to fight the nazis around it.

Putins regime already starting to demonize Sweden for it's own people and convince them that prominent Swedes are (were) evil nazis. It surely will do the same for my country, but it started with the Swedish "nazis". Perhaps as Russians don't hate enough Swedes.



I'm just waiting when the some persons will take on the topic (Swedes being nazis) here.

Good collection. :up: Some videos have already been mentioned here.

If one doesn't have the time to read and someone is totally new to the subject, I urge looking at those (or listening while doing something else).

Putins regime already starting to demonize Sweden for it's own people and convince them that prominent Swedes are (were) evil nazis. It surely will do the same for my country, but it started with the Swedish "nazis". Perhaps as Russians don't hate enough Swedes. — ssu

They point out that Astrid Lindgren is a nazi and Russians are falling for it. They are making it very hard not to view the entire nation of Russia as fucking stupid. From this to their stupid war strategies to how they now say Israel supports nazis because they support Zelenskyy, who's a nazi according to Russia. :rofl:

It's downright pathetic to the point it becomes comedy. I would laugh hard if it weren't for all the children being killed or the torture and executions of civilians by Russian forces. Russia can go and fuck themselves, hard. Let all the critics of the war and Putin out of Russia and let the rest sit there in their own pool of bullshit. Let them rot in their own stupidity until there's nothing but a Mad Max wasteland with a delusional billionaire king. All of these Russians want to be free from Western influence, so be it, let them do whatever they want. Let us put up anti-air defense weapons around their borders so no nukes will fly out whenever someone has dementia and then let them be alone, isolated from the "western nazis". Let's stop all the trade and every interaction with them, they don't want to be part of the western world anyway, so fuck'em. Let them play empire for themselves until they realize just how stupid they are.

I had hopes the Russian people would get angrier toward Putin and the people in power, I guess I was wrong.

Dude, Russia has had a nuclear arsenal for decades and I don't see Russia invading Paris, London, or New York! — Apollodorus

I didn't see Kiev, Paris, London or New York invading Russia either. Yet Russia was considering Ukraine joining NATO and EU as an existential threat to them to the point of wage war against Ukraine and threatening the West to escalate to a nuclear war every other day.

Plus, here's an official Pentagon statement:
We continue to monitor their nuclear capabilities every day the best we can and we do not assess that there is a threat of the use of nuclear weapons and no threat to NATO territory
U.S. sees no threat of Russia using nuclear weapons despite rhetoric - Reuters
Maybe you live in some remote area where there is no news or they can't read? :grin: — Apollodorus

Dude, reading is not enough, one has to actually understand what one reads too.
So, first of all, there would be no pressure into monitoring “nuclear capabilities every day the best we can” despite the rhetoric if there was no threats in the first place (some listed in the very article you linked, here you find some more https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-baltic-nuclear-deployment-if-nato-admits-sweden-finland-2022-04-14/, here some others https://www.npr.org/2022/03/29/1089533705/putin-publicly-put-russian-nuclear-forces-on-high-alert-what-should-we-make-of-t?t=1651589513787, here some more: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-russia-moscow-kyiv-626a8c5ec22217bacb24ece60fac4fe1, here some more from Russian propaganda and think thank pundits https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/05/03/russian-propaganda-escalates-laying-ground-for-nuclear-strike/, https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2022/04/russia-cannot-afford-to-lose-so-we-need-a-kind-of-a-victory-sergey-karaganov-on-what-putin-wants). Iran for its alleged threats and without actual nuclear capabilities is subject to a total embargo from the West, antagonised through proxy wars and aborted attempts of regime change.
Second, I wasn’t exclusively referring to the current scenario but also to the risks of escalation as one of your zealous fellows has warned all of us about [1], which Westerners can’t take lightly, even more so Europeans since they are exposed to Russian nuclear threats far more than the US, while being heavily but not unconditionally dependent on the US intelligence and military capacity to contain this threat. Weren’t the case we would have seen a no fly zone declaration already. BTW, if the West was accused of ignoring Russian grievances against NATO expansion, now the West can’t ignore Russian nuclear threats, can they? Russians could take this underestimation as a provocation and escalate just to prove a point, right? Many Westerners couldn't believe Russia would have started this war despite American warnings and Russian fake assurances [2]. And given how shitty Russians seem to perform in this war there is a greater risk that with their obsolete military doctrine organisation technology they could cause troubles beyond their intention for themselves and for the Westerners.


[1]

On many levels, Russia has few reasons not to use nuclear weapons; there is no reason for NATO to launch a strategic nuclear strike against Russia because it used a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.
In particular, if Ukraine is able to continue to successfully blowup Russian industry and flagships (assuming all that was Ukraine), the only feasible retaliation available to Russia in the current situation maybe tactical nuclear weapons, and at some point retaliation is politically necessary and not just a good idea from a military perspective.
There's a lot of mathematics that can illuminate why all this is likely to be the case, but the short version is that it's the nature of this kind of crisis to get spontaneously worse and not spontaneously better. — boethius

[2]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60392259
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60468264
https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-22-22/h_e6582bb2eb31e968a08bc25ea6e2bee3

I didn't see Kiev, Paris, London or New York invading Russia either. Yet Russia was considering Ukraine joining NATO and EU as an existential threat to them to the point of wage war against Ukraine and threatening the West to escalate to a nuclear war every other day. — neomac

Dude, whether Ukraine joining NATO is a security threat to Russia or not, is for Russia to decide, not for you or me.

In any case, if you've got a problem with Russia invading Ukraine, go talk to Putin. I've got nothing to do with it! :rofl:

So, first of all, there would be no pressure into monitoring “nuclear capabilities every day the best we can” despite the rhetoric if there was no threats in the first place — neomac

Dude, says WHO???

Rival nuclear powers monitor one another as a matter of everyday routine. At the end of the day, you react to a threat if you identify a threat. And you can identify a threat only by monitoring your opponent. So, you monitor your opponent irrespective of their being or not an imminent threat.

As far as I can see, the article says very clearly that Boris Johnson said "he did not expect any further Russian military failures in Ukraine to push Putin into using tactical nuclear weapons" and that CIA Director William Burns "said that the CIA has not seen a lot of practical evidence reinforcing that concern".

If you've got any evidence that Russia is going to nuke your house or village tonight, feel free to whatsupp Lloyd Austin and tell him. But you better do it quick before it's too late! :grin:

They really amped up the Bond villain vibes with the state news network showing graphics of their nuclear powered super submarine drone detonating a 100 megaton bomb on the ocean floor beside the UK, generating a tsunami that, somehow in magical Russian physics world, permanently buries the UK underneath the ocean.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1604020/Putin-nuclear-drone-Poseidon-UK-nuclear-attack-russia-1-video-Dmitry-Kiselyov-vn

It's the perfect super villain combo of the totally atrocious and the completely impractical.

For some reason they also throw Ireland underneath the ocean too...

It's downright pathetic to the point it becomes comedy. — Christoffer

Ignorance and 'supporting the troops' make anything that otherwise would be satire transform itself to be the truth.

Who knows, perhaps Putin will use May 9th as the day to acknowledge the war and declare mobilization.



Want to make a bet? When Finland and Sweden announce they are seeking membership in NATO, the aerospace of either or both countries will be infringed by Russian aircraft. Or a cyberattack happens. (Happened here precisely when Zelensky was talking to the local Parliament, so I guess they'll work with similar clockwork precision.)

Even God's representative on Earth recognizes the Western role in provoking the mass death of Ukranians.

Pope Francis said that the “barking of NATO at the door of Russia” might have led to the invasion of Ukraine and that he didn't know whether other countries should supply Ukraine with more arms.

The pope at the same time deplored the brutality of the war and criticized the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church for defending the invasion in religious terms, warning that Patriarch Kirill of Moscow “cannot turn himself into Putin’s altar boy.”

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-05-03/card/pope-says-nato-may-have-provoked-russian-invasion-of-ukraine

Dude, whether Ukraine joining NATO is a security threat to Russia or not, is for Russia to decide, not for you or me. — Apollodorus

Dude, whether Russia is a security threat to Ukraine or not, is for Ukraine to decide.

In any case, if you've got a problem with Russia invading Ukraine, go talk to Putin. I've got nothing to do with it! :rofl: — Apollodorus

Sure you do with your propaganda.

Dude, says WHO??? — Apollodorus

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin:
Russia’s most recent threats of escalating its attack on Ukraine into a nuclear conflict are “unhelpful” and “irresponsible,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Tuesday.  “You’ve heard us say a number of times that that kind of rhetoric is very dangerous and unhelpful,” Austin told reporters following a meeting with military leaders from more than 40 countries at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. 
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3463700-pentagon-chief-irresponsible-for-russia-to-talk-about-potential-nuclear-escalation/

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall:
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was just a month old, but Kendall noted the danger of escalation: “We’re dealing with a nuclear-armed state; you cannot ignore that as you make decisions about how to respond.” […] “World War II-style conflict that could involve nuclear weapons is not in anybody’s interest,” Kendall stressed in our interview last month. “That’s pretty obvious. But that doesn’t mean that somebody is not going to make a mistake in taking an aggressive action, thinking that the other side is not going to fight and then finds out that they do.” That, he said, “ends in a very difficult situation.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/28/russia-ukraine-nuclear-pentagon-budget/


CIA Director William Burns:
"Given the potential desperation of President Putin and the Russian leadership, given the setbacks that they've faced so far, militarily, none of us can take lightly the threat posed by a potential resort to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapons," Burns said during a speech in Atlanta.
The Kremlin said it placed Russian nuclear forces on high alert shortly after the assault began February 24, but the United States has not seen "a lot of practical evidence" of actual deployments that would cause more worry, Burns added, speaking to students at Georgia Tech university.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220414-live-major-russian-warship-seriously-damaged-in-explosion-as-ukraine-claims-strike

NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg:
underscored the urgency of the preparation effort on Wednesday, telling reporters for the first time that even if the Russians employ weapons of mass destruction only inside Ukraine, they may have “dire consequences” for people in NATO nations. He appeared to be discussing the fear that chemical or radioactive clouds could drift over the border. One issue under examination is whether such collateral damage would be considered an “attack” on NATO under its charter, which might require a joint military response.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/biden-russia-nuclear-weapons.html

Rival nuclear powers monitor one another as a matter of everyday routine. At the end of the day, you react to a threat if you identify a threat. And you can identify a threat only by monitoring your opponent. So, you monitor your opponent irrespective of their being or not an imminent threat. — Apollodorus

Sure, but the pressure depends on the perceived risks, indeed:

“In late February, when President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia declared that his country’s nuclear arms were entering “special combat readiness,” America’s surveillance gear went on high alert. Hundreds of imaging satellites, as well as other private and federal spacecraft, began looking for signs of heightened activity among Russia’s bombers, missiles, submarines and storage bunkers, which hold thousands of nuclear warheads.”
“Dr. Lowenthal, the former C.I.A. assistant director and now a senior lecturer at Johns Hopkins, said he found the personnel aspect of Moscow’s escalatory process the most troubling. We can develop a good baseline on what’s normal” and routine in the movement of Russian nuclear arms, he said. “It’s the internal stuff that’s always worrisome.” Imaging satellites, after all, cannot see what people are doing inside buildings and bunkers. He said the main uncertainty was “the level of automaticity” in Russia’s escalatory war alerts […] You’re never quite sure” how Russia goes about authorizing the use of nuclear arms, Dr. Lowenthal said. “That’s the kind of thing that makes you nervous.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/05/science/nuclear-weapon-russia-satellite-tracking.html

“The White House has quietly assembled a team of national security officials to sketch out scenarios of how the United States and its allies should respond if President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia — frustrated by his lack of progress in Ukraine or determined to warn Western nations against intervening in the war — unleashes his stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons”.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/biden-russia-nuclear-weapons.html

Nobody is going to wait for Putin to make the first move on this.

Of course, there were some individuals of Norman extraction among the imperialists, but even they were hardly your "pure-bread Normans". The Norman element would have been increasingly diluted over the centuries.

You miss the point, the point is class and privilege, not blood lines (I said institutions) The structure of the British class system was virtually as rigid as the caste system, going right back to the year 1066.

Where do you think this class system (and therefore British imperialism) originated?