NATO likely won't accept countries with a live conflict though, which rules out Georgia, Armenia and Moldova I would think.
Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
Don't count the chickens before they hatch.
Oh ffs, I meant not that THEY are threatning Russia, but that in that they ARE threatning because NATO could put forces there and THEN threaten a conventional attack on Russia.
And I did also say in my comment that would probably not happen because Russia got nukes.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
To clarify, you are asking for a list of all the nations that were attacked by NATO nations (for example, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) or are you asking for specifically when NATO as a group had officially attacked anyone? Before if it's the former, then yeah, there's a list and if it's the latter, then that's just a meaningless joke.
Oh no no no, it is much more complicated that that. First of all, due to the greed of politicians, countries can be bought and turned into attack dogs against their own interests and their citizens would not know with effective propaganda. Secondly, America has the ability to be generous with other people's things here, thus making friends while the resident regional power needs to keep those resources for itself and cannot be generous with them. Let me give you an example. The US has good relationships with Mexico and Canada... because neither can afford to have bad relations with the US. Now imagine that Country X half the world away has developed a superweapon, used it once, and caused the US to surrender. That country can now declare that Mexico will now get back the entire Western coast that the US had previously robbed from it. Then, it can move the Canadian border down and start to encroach on American territory, giving away American resources to the Canadians. Country X can be generous with American resources because it's not paying for them but the US will do its best to resist because those are its things that it needs for its citizens and to grow with. Suddenly, you now have Mexico and Canada loving Country X and on very bad terms with the US, and although neither nation historically had the power to challenge the US, Country X stands behind them so now they can make threats, act like little dipshits to America all day long because they are mice standing in front of a lion. When the US tries to defend its resources and rights from being bullied away from it, those countries will justify their efforts to take them with anti-US propaganda to their citizens. Then, by your logic, we can say, "If the US wasn't such a terrible shitty neighbor, it wouldn't have these relationship problems!"
Last edited:
I'm complaining?
You're the one crying about how Ukraine is a victim of Russia, without actually doing anything about it.
Your leaders have literally used Ukraine as cannon-fodder while just whining about it on TV every 5 minutes.
If you actually give a shit about Ukraine, then go and volunteer to save Ukraine, instead of crying on the internet.
Do you think you're the first one on this thread who made this completely futile argument?
But since you insist, I'll go over it again, because this is such an easy thing to prove.
You ask how has NATO been aggressive and who backs up this claim, yea?
Well guess what, your own Cold War establishment has clearly said this.
Everyone from Kissinger, to Keenan, to MacNamara have said NATO is responsible for this mess.
There are so many sources for this obvious fact, it would be beyond the wordcount limit if I try to post them.
But here's a few:
If even your own war criminals have said that NATO is the aggressor here, then I ask you again: wtf are u talking about?
Last edited:
What a lot of people missed from Russia's surrender demand from Mariupol last night: they offered safe passage for all fighters if they wanted to take it.
It seems despite all the threats about no quarter for nazis in the end the Russians still were prepared to give them the same deal they offered ISIS fighters in Syrian cities. It worked there and there were many times where ISIS fighters were bussed out of sieges.
We'll have to wait and see if any if any took up that deal.
It seems despite all the threats about no quarter for nazis in the end the Russians still were prepared to give them the same deal they offered ISIS fighters in Syrian cities. It worked there and there were many times where ISIS fighters were bussed out of sieges.
We'll have to wait and see if any if any took up that deal.
NATO expansion has basically become the proverbial chicken or the egg causality dilemma now with Russia's invasion of Ukraine:
Expansion caused the invasion <-> Expansion was justified by the invasion.
Expansion caused the invasion <-> Expansion was justified by the invasion.
Thats mostly because Mexico has no choice, since USA steadily and methodically undermined that country's internal integrity since there was Mexico and the United States.
By all acounts Mexico can and should have been a great power if not for the Americans
To win without having to fight is the best way to win, according to Sun Tzu. Also according to Sun Tzu storming a besieged city is the least desirable form of combat, and that is still true to this day...
Yeah Georgia isn't joining NATO. Anyone who seriously thinks they would be allowed now is living in fantasy land.
Russia would be happy for them to join. It'll be easier to trigger WW3 fighting in what is basically home territory than travelling all the way to eastern Europe.
Russia would be happy for them to join. It'll be easier to trigger WW3 fighting in what is basically home territory than travelling all the way to eastern Europe.
- Status