https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45930206

Who's from Europe here - what are we doing next?

Stop violating the treaty and reinstate it. Simple.

Trump is stupid to pull out. He makes the world a little more unsafe. Russia should stop violating this treaty (and others), the Putin regime makes the world less safe.

Dutchy wrote:

Russia should stop violating this treaty (and others), the Putin regime makes the world less safe.

The Americans are solely to blame for this mess. They were the ones who withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002 to pursue the missile defence shield. The entire point of that treaty was to prevent this mess. The missile defence shield gave the US the ability to strike Russia without fear of retaliation. It breaks the entire concept of MAD. The The stupid Americans were warned about this countless times.

How many times have we seen this? He creates a crisis, puts out a few tweets and angry rallies then gets a new treaty that is the same or worse for the United States and claims victory. This is a big nothing burger, to quote another poster.

VSMUT wrote:

The Americans are solely to blame for this mess. They were the ones who withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002 to pursue the missile defence shield. The entire point of that treaty was to prevent this mess. The missile defence shield gave the US the ability to strike Russia without fear of retaliation. It breaks the entire concept of MAD. The The stupid Americans were warned about this countless times.

Ding!

That was at the time when we had a president with a lot of slogans and a two digit IQ (just like now). This country ain't what it used to be back when it was necessary for a candidate to at least appear to be a statesman in order to be elected to the highest office.

What ever happened to the concept of the Advice and Consent that the Senate was supposed to provide in Foreign Affairs. TransPacific? Trump couldn't be bothered with the Senate. Russia treaty? Trump can't be bothered with the Senate.

Could it be that the Republicans in the House and Senate are so afraid of Trump that they will let him do anything as long as they can get re-elected?

The Europeans on this board consider themselves superior to all others , they can figure it out. Protect yourselves for a change

Well if Trump pulls out it's so the US can make such missiles again, no ? To what end ? There were protests last time the US put such missiles on European soil, from what I read. Trump doesn't want to defend us anyway, so where will he put the missiles ?

salttee wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

The Americans are solely to blame for this mess. They were the ones who withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002 to pursue the missile defence shield. The entire point of that treaty was to prevent this mess. The missile defence shield gave the US the ability to strike Russia without fear of retaliation. It breaks the entire concept of MAD. The The stupid Americans were warned about this countless times.

Ding!

No Ding.
While the causal relationship is correct, the US withdrawing from a treaty does justify Russia withdrawing from another treaty, but not violating it.
Russia continued to develop and deploy ABM systems and does so until today. Since they don't really care about anything outside of Moscow, they are fine with the 100 missile/one site limitation. Russia also doesn't have to violate the ABM treaty to develop and deploy defenses against North Korean, Chinese, Pakistani, Indian or Israeli missiles, as Anti-IRMB missiles are not subject to the ABM treaty as it is understood by both sides.
If the US had deployed hundreds of interceptors the argument would hold water.

dmg626 wrote:

The Europeans on this board consider themselves superior to all others , they can figure it out. Protect yourselves for a change

We outspent and outgun Russia by a factor between 3 and 5, thank you very much.
The notion that the US or the USSR signed away a whole class of weapon systems to protect Europe is hilarious bordering on delusional. They where given up because they made no sense for them. That is why the 2k miles range French S3 missiles where not even part of the consideration.

Best regards
Thomas

@Tommy
I'm still with VSMUT. Bush threw the premise of mutual assured destruction out the window. The US is more technically advanced than is Russia so there was no legal and effective way Russia could respond, hence they fudge on the IRBM. All the other arguments are superfluous. The US was cheating on the spirit of detente, I don't blame Russia a bit for their response. The legalize you are citing is just gibberish between superpowers if the agreements are carried out in bad faith.

salttee wrote:

The legalize you are citing is just gibberish between superpowers if the agreements are carried out in bad faith.

Exactly my point. The US did something stupid in quitting the ABM treaty, but that didn't violate good faith, Russia pretended to abide with the IMF, and didn't execute it in good faith.
Russia has ABM missiles, I see no reason to think they are worse than the US types.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Exactly my point. The US did something stupid in quitting the ABM treaty, but that didn't violate good faith,

That's where we disagree. The point of the treaty was to keep the MAD policy in place and to end the arms race. Bush violated that basic principle when he ended the agreement. He didn't end it because it wasn't working, he ended it because he saw an opportunity to take advantage.

I don't fault the Russians at all for playing the same game in return.
It's called realpolitik.

When they go low, we go lower.

salttee wrote:

.
I don't fault the Russians at all for playing the same game in return.
It's called realpolitik..

The same game would have been quitting the IMF, not violating it. The very limited anti-ICBM ability Bush wanted does not end MAD, it actually makes nuclear war less winnable, as decapitation won't work, and counter-force becomes more difficult. It also kills flexible response options when it comes to nuclear war, making step escalation unlikely.

44 GMI are way less than the 100 permissible under the ABM, the US system would be perfectly fine if it was stationed at just one location. I would say as long as the number is below 100, the spirit of the ABM is preserved.

Of course you will disagree with that, but the notion of a few hands full of ABM missiles destroying the concept of MAD is quite obvious ridiculous in the face of 1000+ warheads...

Best regards
Thomas

Bush didn't want "very limited anti-ICBM ability" he was stupid enough to think it would actually work, and no doubt intended it to provide a complete shield for the US. This very limited ability wasn't part of the original plan. Bush was a hawk, he spewed warlike jingo even before 9-11. He believed everything he was told by the military and the defense contractors. Russian US relations were in detante all through the Clinton years and Bush changed all that. Blowback from the Russians was inevitable.

How quickly we forget.

salttee wrote:

How quickly we forget.

All you list was sales pitch. Everybody with a memory calling it such remembers the principle SDI lesson: adding more warheads and decoys will always be cheaper than defending against them. Think about the target audience. You know, the folks that swallowed Iraqi WMD whole, elected Trump and are still convinced Obama withdrew the US forces from Iraq, on top of thinking taxes are theft and universal healthcare is evil. Telling them "oh well, we can protect LA, DC and NYC against an limited attack, but not Lansing, MI and other small target if Big Mistake no. 3 gets kicked of" would not have flown in the public opinion. Heck, a goodly supply of them would think mushroom clouds over those liberal bastions would be a win.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Stop violating the treaty and reinstate it. Simple.

Dutchy wrote:

Trump is stupid to pull out. He makes the world a little more unsafe. Russia should stop violating this treaty (and others), the Putin regime makes the world less safe.

What's the violation? Yes, there is a missile the USA had questions to. Did someone at least bother to come to Moscow and take a look at the missile? Or is it again "highly likely"? INF treaty also prescribes control means - they could if they wanted to. In that case of course Russians could ask to examine examine the missile defenses in Poland and Romania, to make sure that there are indeed interceptors, and not Tomahawks. Those facilities can accept Tomahawks without any change, hence it would be a fair game. But the notion of a "fair game" isn't about Americans (and never was).

Polish or Romanian authorities won't even be aware of the change necessarily. The world is a lot more unsafe since together with the treaty also go means of control and checks on who has how much and what.

Aesma wrote:

Well if Trump pulls out it's so the US can make such missiles again, no ? To what end ? There were protests last time the US put such missiles on European soil, from what I read. Trump doesn't want to defend us anyway, so where will he put the missiles ?

Where will he put the missiles? In Europe, of course, where else. And no, nobody will ask you. And furthermore, given American lobbying of "military Schengen", a European nation (be it France, Germany, Netherlands or Poland) won't even be aware that there's something strategic and nuclear deployed on their territory. And hence is a target of a Caliber or, worse yet, an Iscander (a hyper-sonic short range missile also capable of carrying a nuclear warhead). So Europe is now just a combat field for someone else's military exercises, like it or not.

This is already second reason to start regaining sovereignty. Already you got a taste of sanctions. Now, if you still want your NATO solidarity - well, be prepared to be the target. And the consequences of a technical fault or even a false alarm can be fatal and inevitable. Now flight time of missile from the US territory is about 30 minutes - enough to figure out. From Europe, this time drops down to 4 minutes, and that necessitates fully automatic response within seconds. Britain and 2/3 of Netherlands become history in a matter of half an hour.

If Europeans want to live in such world - it's up to them. If not - they at least can try to keep the agreement with Russians for themselves. For example, by demanding that Russians keep the agreement, don't keep nuclear forces close to European borders and in exchange don't allow any strategic forces of any outside power are present on the continent, including any nuclear forces or missile defenses.

anrec80 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Well if Trump pulls out it's so the US can make such missiles again, no ? To what end ? There were protests last time the US put such missiles on European soil, from what I read. Trump doesn't want to defend us anyway, so where will he put the missiles ?

Where will he put the missiles? In Europe, of course, where else. And no, nobody will ask you. And furthermore, given American lobbying of "military Schengen", a European nation (be it France, Germany, Netherlands or Poland) l.

Hard to say if you are just badly informed or deliberately lying. There is nothing near military Schengen in Europe, you can't even bring an infantry rifle across a border in Europe without extensive paperwork. The host governments know exactly how many US nukes are where on their territory.

You can already nuke Europe, every ICBM can hit targets arbitrarily close to its launch point. IMF only removed specialized, smaller (=cheaper) missiles from the board. Nuking Büchel with four minutes warning time is possible without IMRB anyways.

And let's be honest, whoever fires first only dies 2nd.

Best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

Trump is stupid to pull out. He makes the world a little more unsafe. Russia should stop violating this treaty (and others), the Putin regime makes the world less safe.

And in doing so, some commentators think he is doing exactly what is best for Putin. Coincidence?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... olton.html

alfa164 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Trump is stupid to pull out. He makes the world a little more unsafe. Russia should stop violating this treaty (and others), the Putin regime makes the world less safe.

And in doing so, some commentators think he is doing exactly what is best for Putin. Coincidence?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... olton.html

Sure, this will benefit the Putin regime. Portaging America as the bad guy and he will have a "cheap" way to wage war/defending against countries not surrendering to the will of Putin. It is lowering the threshold of actually using nuclear devices. Remember Putin said he was prepared to use nuclear devices in Crimea?

If Trump got direct instructions to do this from the Kremlin or he was manipulated into doing this, we will never know.

anrec80 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Well if Trump pulls out it's so the US can make such missiles again, no ? To what end ? There were protests last time the US put such missiles on European soil, from what I read. Trump doesn't want to defend us anyway, so where will he put the missiles ?

Where will he put the missiles? In Europe, of course, where else. And no, nobody will ask you. And furthermore, given American lobbying of "military Schengen", a European nation (be it France, Germany, Netherlands or Poland) won't even be aware that there's something strategic and nuclear deployed on their territory. And hence is a target of a Caliber or, worse yet, an Iscander (a hyper-sonic short range missile also capable of carrying a nuclear warhead). So Europe is now just a combat field for someone else's military exercises, like it or not.

This is already second reason to start regaining sovereignty. Already you got a taste of sanctions. Now, if you still want your NATO solidarity - well, be prepared to be the target. And the consequences of a technical fault or even a false alarm can be fatal and inevitable. Now flight time of missile from the US territory is about 30 minutes - enough to figure out. From Europe, this time drops down to 4 minutes, and that necessitates fully automatic response within seconds. Britain and 2/3 of Netherlands become history in a matter of half an hour.

If Europeans want to live in such world - it's up to them. If not - they at least can try to keep the agreement with Russians for themselves. For example, by demanding that Russians keep the agreement, don't keep nuclear forces close to European borders and in exchange don't allow any strategic forces of any outside power are present on the continent, including any nuclear forces or missile defenses.

Not to worry, your Putin regime will implode in ten years. 5% of the national budget on defense and such a corrupt regime is not the basis for a long lasting government. But you keep defending them and try to do your script trying to undermine the alliance of NATO and the EU by this kind of bs talk.

Dutchy wrote:

your Putin regime will implode in ten years. 5% of the national budget on defense and such a corrupt regime is not the basis for a long lasting government.

I wouldn't count on that. Rome lasted 1,000 years in a similar state. And the Russian people have been conditioned for this kind of government going all the way back to the Czars (and before the Czars), it's all they know.

Feeding their paranoia is counterproductive IMO.

Dutchy wrote:

Not to worry, your Putin regime will implode in ten years. 5% of the national budget on defense and such a corrupt regime is not the basis for a long lasting government. But you keep defending them and try to do your script trying to undermine the alliance of NATO and the EU by this kind of bs talk.

I wouldn’t bet on that. Despite 5% defense spending, their economy is profitable, and budget has surpluses. Unlike most (if not all) European nations. And speaking of your alliance - look at the relations Europe has with the USA. First - sanctions threats. Now - you are being set up as a target. Is this really an alliance? Anything but that.

Many in American elite dislike Russia. And they will be ready to fight Russia until the last European, just as now they are ready to fight Russia until the last Ukrainian. If you want this role, for your country to be the battleground and in the middle of all that - it’s up to you. I’d prefer for my country that this fight is happening elsewhere.

tommy1808 wrote:

Hard to say if you are just badly informed or deliberately lying. There is nothing near military Schengen in Europe, you can't even bring an infantry rifle across a border in Europe without extensive paperwork. The host governments know exactly how many US nukes are where on their territory.

Did I say that there is a military Schengen in Europe? I said that there is active lobbying for that.

Ken777 wrote:

What ever happened to the concept of the Advice and Consent that the Senate was supposed to provide in Foreign Affairs. TransPacific? Trump couldn't be bothered with the Senate. Russia treaty? Trump can't be bothered with the Senate.

Could it be that the Republicans in the House and Senate are so afraid of Trump that they will let him do anything as long as they can get re-elected?

Right on the head, a bunch of moral cowards, with re-election first and foremost, above country and all else. Did you see where lying Ted Cruz is now wonderful Ted Cruz? Sickeningly fawning BS. Anything to retain power. Ethics and morality gone, gone, gone, if they ever really had any in the Republican Party.

There are no US military installation of any kind in my country and thus no US-controlled missile of any kind. I wish it would be the same in the rest of Western Europe at least but it's not up to me to decide.

I think the US is misguided but that doesn't absolve Russia. At the end of the day it's Russia expanding its territory through illegal wars, not the US.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Not to worry, your Putin regime will implode in ten years. 5% of the national budget on defense and such a corrupt regime is not the basis for a long lasting government. But you keep defending them and try to do your script trying to undermine the alliance of NATO and the EU by this kind of bs talk.

I wouldn’t bet on that. Despite 5% defense spending, their economy is profitable, and budget has surpluses. Unlike most (if not all) European nations. And speaking of your alliance - look at the relations Europe has with the USA. First - sanctions threats. Now - you are being set up as a target. Is this really an alliance? Anything but that.

Many in American elite dislike Russia. And they will be ready to fight Russia until the last European, just as now they are ready to fight Russia until the last Ukrainian. If you want this role, for your country to be the battleground and in the middle of all that - it’s up to you. I’d prefer for my country that this fight is happening elsewhere.

Like I said, you are trying to divide Europe from America, typical troll behavior and one of the objectives of the Putin regime. You are just not very successful.

To answer your question, I prefer your Putin to be a good neighbour instead of an aggressive one.

anrec80 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Hard to say if you are just badly informed or deliberately lying. There is nothing near military Schengen in Europe, you can't even bring an infantry rifle across a border in Europe without extensive paperwork. The host governments know exactly how many US nukes are where on their territory.

Did I say that there is a military Schengen in Europe? I said that there is active lobbying for that.

So if one person in Europe is lobbying for that, you are technically right, but it isn't very successful, Could you please provide some proof whom is lobbying and for which group?

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Hard to say if you are just badly informed or deliberately lying. There is nothing near military Schengen in Europe, you can't even bring an infantry rifle across a border in Europe without extensive paperwork. The host governments know exactly how many US nukes are where on their territory.

Did I say that there is a military Schengen in Europe? I said that there is active lobbying for that.

So if one person in Europe is lobbying for that, you are technically right, but it isn't very successful, Could you please provide some proof whom is lobbying and for which group?

There is some administrative work done to make bringing NATO troops and material forward faster in case of high tension, since NATO doesn't maintain sufficient stopping power at the forward edge of the battlefield anymore. He is probably calling that Military Schengen, which is of course fucked up.

Best regards
Thomas

Well this is exactly why Putin put Trump in the White House!

American pullout will only help the Russian regime expand the scope of their weapons development.

Again I laughed at the local Russophobic commentators.

Let me give you some facts:
1. The approach of NATO's military infrastructure to Russia's borders is a direct and clear threat to security. According to the military doctrine of Russia, we will not allow the conduct of war on the territory of our country by ANY means, including a nuclear strike.
Why? Because we have already faced the case of a sudden attack on our territory. In this regard, we regard NATO as well as Nazi Germany as an unconditional aggressor.

2. The deployment of missile DEFENSE in Europe reduces Russia's ability to defend against aggression with a nuclear strike. The very essence of the doctrine of guaranteed retaliation is that no one will dare to show military aggression against the territory of Russia, knowing that he will suffer unacceptable losses. Given that currently the number of nuclear weapons is limited by international treaties (which Russia is implementing), it turns out that the deployment of missiles in Europe worsens the situation in Russia. After all, Russia cannot increase the number of nuclear weapons in response to the deployment of missile defense IN Europe.

3. Thus, in order to maintain the strategic balance of military power, Russia is forced to increase its strike forces in some way. There are two ways to do this. The first is the withdrawal from the Treaty on the limitation of nuclear weapons and the increase in the group of ICBMs. The second method is the creation of a weapon that aims at destroying the military potential of NATO in Europe. One such weapon is short-and medium-range missiles, which are subject to the Treaty on the limitation of short-and medium-range missiles.
I would like to remind you that Russia has repeatedly warned that the deployment of NATO military bases in Europe and elements of the missile DEFENCE system will entail the need for a response from Russia. However, all these warnings were ignored in the West.
What did Russia do next? We have been notified that we are developing new types of weapons. Notice-notified that development is conducted. Not taking on armament and development.
This is another signal to NATO-get away from our borders, otherwise we will be forced to answer. And again no one listened to this signal. And now the United States SUDDENLY (after thirty years of violating the agreement on the balance of forces in Europe, lol) found that Russia (highly likely) does not comply with the terms of the Treaty, which can only be wiped because of NATO's actions in Europe.

Seriously, can you stop choose idiots to positions in the Western governments?

Scorpius wrote:

Because we have already faced the case of a sudden attack on our territory. In this regard, we regard NATO as well as Nazi Germany as an unconditional aggressor.

Here we go again with Scorpius. Ignoring that the idiotic Russophobic remark. Let's call it once again. When, where and by whom did this attack occur?

I do not expect an answer from our resident Putin defender.

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Because we have already faced the case of a sudden attack on our territory. In this regard, we regard NATO as well as Nazi Germany as an unconditional aggressor.

Here we go again with Scorpius. Ignoring that the idiotic Russophobic remark. Let's call it once again. When, where and by whom did this attack occur?

I do not expect an answer from our resident Putin defender.

What kind of attack did you want to ask? If we recall history-Nazi Germany first assured the USSR of peaceful intentions, and then carried out a sudden attack on the territory of the USSR. NATO for us is equivalent to Nazi Germany-so we do not believe the assurances that missile defense IS not directed against Russia, and NATO's military infrastructure is not a threat. For us, you are an absolute potential threat, and this will continue as long as there are us military bases in Europe and NATO itself.
We have not forgotten the cold war, we have not forgotten the "Dropshot plan", we have not forgotten the "Operation Unthinkable "plan, we have not forgotten that the US and its satellites have always aimed to destroy the USSR and seize its resources. You failed in the nineties to turn Russia into a colony - so NATO again began to move towards the borders of Russia. I will repeat once again, if someone does not understand: if you want to talk about something with Russia-first remove all American bases from Europe and dissolve NATO. Only then will you be able to discuss with Russia some security guarantees.

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Because we have already faced the case of a sudden attack on our territory. In this regard, we regard NATO as well as Nazi Germany as an unconditional aggressor.

Here we go again with Scorpius. Ignoring that the idiotic Russophobic remark. Let's call it once again. When, where and by whom did this attack occur?

I do not expect an answer from our resident Putin defender.

What kind of attack did you want to ask? If we recall history-Nazi Germany first assured the USSR of peaceful intentions, and then carried out a sudden attack on the territory of the USSR. NATO for us is equivalent to Nazi Germany-so we do not believe the assurances that missile defense IS not directed against Russia, and NATO's military infrastructure is not a threat. For us, you are an absolute potential threat, and this will continue as long as there are us military bases in Europe and NATO itself.
We have not forgotten the cold war, we have not forgotten the "Dropshot plan", we have not forgotten the "Operation Unthinkable "plan, we have not forgotten that the US and its satellites have always aimed to destroy the USSR and seize its resources. You failed in the nineties to turn Russia into a colony - so NATO again began to move towards the borders of Russia. I will repeat once again, if someone does not understand: if you want to talk about something with Russia-first remove all American bases from Europe and dissolve NATO. Only then will you be able to discuss with Russia some security guarantees.

Welcome, Scorpius#3. USSR peaceful intentions? Not towards Poland which they carved up with NAZI Germany which paved the way for NAZI-Germany to concur western Europe. Stalin played a very dubious role at the beginning of WWII. I know you do not except that, but hey, everyone can just look it up in the history books.

So your reasoning is: NAZI-Germany = NATO. NAZI-Germany invaded Russia after they said they would be friends, thus NATO has done it because they are the same. If you see NAZI-Germany as the equivalent of NATO, you are plain crazy. My cat has four legs, my dog has four legs, thus my dog is a cat. If this kind of reasoning is serious, I seriously doubt your 130IQ claim, along with everything else you have said.

Russia is not in any position to demand anything like that. Russia is a regional power, not a superpower. As long as you do not except that, you will have these delusions and come up with these ridiculous comments.

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Here we go again with Scorpius. Ignoring that the idiotic Russophobic remark. Let's call it once again. When, where and by whom did this attack occur?

I do not expect an answer from our resident Putin defender.

What kind of attack did you want to ask? If we recall history-Nazi Germany first assured the USSR of peaceful intentions, and then carried out a sudden attack on the territory of the USSR. NATO for us is equivalent to Nazi Germany-so we do not believe the assurances that missile defense IS not directed against Russia, and NATO's military infrastructure is not a threat. For us, you are an absolute potential threat, and this will continue as long as there are us military bases in Europe and NATO itself.
We have not forgotten the cold war, we have not forgotten the "Dropshot plan", we have not forgotten the "Operation Unthinkable "plan, we have not forgotten that the US and its satellites have always aimed to destroy the USSR and seize its resources. You failed in the nineties to turn Russia into a colony - so NATO again began to move towards the borders of Russia. I will repeat once again, if someone does not understand: if you want to talk about something with Russia-first remove all American bases from Europe and dissolve NATO. Only then will you be able to discuss with Russia some security guarantees.

Welcome, Scorpius#3. USSR peaceful intentions? Not towards Poland which they carved up with NAZI Germany which paved the way for NAZI-Germany to concur western Europe. Stalin played a very dubious role at the beginning of WWII. I know you do not except that, but hey, everyone can just look it up in the history books.

So your reasoning is: NAZI-Germany = NATO. NAZI-Germany invaded Russia after they said they would be friends, thus NATO has done it because they are the same. If you see NAZI-Germany as the equivalent of NATO, you are plain crazy. My cat has four legs, my dog has four legs, thus my dog is a cat. If this kind of reasoning is serious, I seriously doubt your 130IQ claim, along with everything else you have said.
.

How curious - you accuse Stalin, but for some reason silent about the Munich conspiracy, and at the same time silent about the fact that Stalin was the last ruler in Europe, who began to cooperate with Germany. Last one, you know, no? By that time, all European countries had somehow cooperated with Germany, despite the fact that the USSR had called for the creation of an anti-German coalition since 1936.

Your thoughts about cats and dogs are stupid. Nazi Germany was a threat to the Soviet Union - NATO is also a threat to Russia. That's their equality.

Russia is not in any position to demand anything like that. Russia is a regional power, not a superpower. As long as you do not except that, you will have these delusions and come up with these ridiculous comments

Keep telling yourself that, and one day, a nuclear warhead will fall on your city. I'm sure you'll be glad your politicians brought the situation to war because of stupidity.

So like Putin said Russians are maniacs who have no problem dying in a nuclear holocaust as long as they shot first and their honor is restored.

Aesma wrote:

So like Putin said Russians are maniacs who have no problem dying in a nuclear holocaust as long as they shot first and their honor is restored.

Putin spoke about the blow of retribution. Why are you twisting his words?

Scorpius wrote:

Aesma wrote:

So like Putin said Russians are maniacs who have no problem dying in a nuclear holocaust as long as they shot first and their honor is restored.

Putin spoke about the blow of retribution. Why are you twisting his words?

Why are you twisting history over and over again and why are you overestimating the power of Russia over and over again and why are you threatening with nuclear war over and over again?

It is all so trivial and amusing, but not very serious.

This has more to do with Russia violating the treaty and China not being a part of the treaty at all, more than anything else. I don't get the "this is trump capitulating to Putin angle. Maybe if you aren't looking at the whole picture I guess. Trump capitulating to putin would be him willfully ignoring these violations.

If nothing else this will direct some attention towards China and their developments. Why be a part of the treaty when China can develop and grow their arsenal how they please?

Dutchy wrote:

Like I said, you are trying to divide Europe from America, typical troll behavior and one of the objectives of the Putin regime. You are just not very successful.

To answer your question, I prefer your Putin to be a good neighbour instead of an aggressive one.

So now it's Putin that's dividing you. Who threatens Europe with all sorts of sanctions - Putin? Who puts missiles in Europe (and presence of missiles requires response) - Putin?

If you want an example of "good neighbor Putin" - just look at Finland. Russians don't have anything having targets in Finland and don't have any significant military forces within hundreds of kilometers from their border. Finns are feeling totally safe and fine, no "aggressive Putin" anywhere. And nobody is dividing Finland with anyone else. That means it is possible to build relations in pretty much the way you want?

Dutchy wrote:

So if one person in Europe is lobbying for that, you are technically right, but it isn't very successful, Could you please provide some proof whom is lobbying and for which group?

Here it is:
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1211 ... engen-zone

More than anything, we need a military Schengen zone, something that would allow a military convoy to move across Europe as fast as a migrant is able to move across Europe.

Dutchy wrote:

Why are you twisting history over and over again and why are you overestimating the power of Russia over and over again and why are you threatening with nuclear war over and over again?

It is all so trivial and amusing, but not very serious.

Always - it's a big mistake to underestimate your opponent. A "regional power" does not have military technological lead. You are a coastal country - are you sure you want to experience what Poseidon is?

Aesma wrote:

There are no US military installation of any kind in my country and thus no US-controlled missile of any kind. I wish it would be the same in the rest of Western Europe at least but it's not up to me to decide.

I think the US is misguided but that doesn't absolve Russia. At the end of the day it's Russia expanding its territory through illegal wars, not the US.

Today perhaps there isn't - tomorrow there is. And you are right, it's not up to you to decide, and not even up to your country. They decide to put missiles there - missiles are there, and your country is a target. The solution to this - is to regain sovereignty, and re-negotiate alliance agreements in a way that you aren't required to let those missiles and things like that in.

Dutchy wrote:

Welcome, Scorpius#3. USSR peaceful intentions? Not towards Poland which they carved up with NAZI Germany which paved the way for NAZI-Germany to concur western Europe. Stalin played a very dubious role at the beginning of WWII. I know you do not except that, but hey, everyone can just look it up in the history books.

Did the USSR deal with Nazi Germany precede the British deal with Nazi Germany (Munich agreement)?! Just asking!

Amazing how some in the West continue to be in denial about their own countries complicity in creating the Nazi menace. If anything, USSR was among the LAST of the countries to make peace with Nazi Germany despite being the most at threat.

Dutchy wrote:

Russia is not in any position to demand anything like that. Russia is a regional power, not a superpower. As long as you do not except that, you will have these delusions and come up with these ridiculous comments.

Regional power with a huge nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver them as well as a Technology-Industrial base that is competitive if not comparable to the USA. That changes things. Equations have changed. The breakup of the USSR was a body blow to the Russians. But the resurgence under Putin has restored the balance. American's are deluding themselves thinking of Russia as some backward, regional power.

Why does Trump's latest move help Russia? Russia can now do what it wants with Nuclear & Missile Technology without being hindered by Gorbachev and Yeltsin era agreements that were holding them back. And for the record, its not Russia but the United States under Trump that has thrown these agreements into the dustbin!

Trump played right into Putin's moves. But that was by design no?

Aesma wrote:

So like Putin said Russians are maniacs who have no problem dying in a nuclear holocaust as long as they shot first and their honor is restored.

"An aggressor should know that vengeance is inevitable, that he will be annihilated, and we would be the victims of the aggression. We will go to heaven as martyrs, and they will just drop dead. They will not even have time to repent for this," he [Putin] said.

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/aggress ... says-63235

He sounds like a freaking islamist. A KGB thug using religious terminology is amusing no less.

Dutchy wrote:

Russia is not in any position to demand anything like that. Russia is a regional power, not a superpower. As long as you do not except that, you will have these delusions and come up with these ridiculous comments.

Russia is present in the following regions, by the means of sheer geography:
- Middle East;
- Far East
- Europe
- Arctic

And in all these regions it has influence. Plus, it's one of the two in the world who has capacity to wipe whole islands off the earth's surface. If someone calls that a "regional power", that one's thinking and view of the world is limited by only one region.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Russia is not in any position to demand anything like that. Russia is a regional power, not a superpower. As long as you do not except that, you will have these delusions and come up with these ridiculous comments.

Russia is present in the following regions, by the means of sheer geography:
- Middle East;
- Far East
- Europe
- Arctic

And in all these regions it has influence. Plus, it's one of the two in the world who has capacity to wipe whole islands off the earth's surface. If someone calls that a "regional power", that one's thinking and view of the world is limited by only one region.

And yes, of course, you Russian defenders are going the nuclear way, yes Russia has an insane amount of nuclear weapons, but if that is the only thing for your claim of fame, it is quite sad actually. Nuclear weapons are for defending, employing them is suicide. So for practical use, it is quite a pointless weapon. Look at how many countries recognized the annexation of Crimea, that is how you measure the influence of a country. I know it is a matter of pride for our Russian defenders, paid or not, but a regional power is the correct term.

anrec80 wrote:

it's one of the two in the world who has capacity to wipe whole islands off the earth's surface.

Of course, of course... you and Scorpius keep repeating that like a stuck record. I think we've all got the message and we all know Russians notoriously confuse fear with respect.

L410Turbolet wrote:

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/aggress ... says-63235

He sounds like a freaking islamist. A KGB thug using religious terminology is amusing no less.

You'd expect that from a "Voice of America" type of publication.
There is a lot of tension workable via translations.

WP:EN:MoscowTimes wrote:

Derk Sauer, a Dutch publisher who came to Moscow in 1989, made plans to turn his small, twice-weekly
paper called the Moscow Guardian into a world-class daily newspaper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moscow_Times#Founding