Including the most recent nuclear threat where Russia effectively declares war on NATO,
He has rubber stamped changes that were first proposed in September.
www.bbc.com
Hi R_L,
You appear not to be able to distinguish between words and actions. Saying something is one thing, taking direct military action is another matter entirely. Russia may have threatened nuclear war (in response to military action by an adversary), but it's the U.S. who is taking deliberate physical steps to make it happen. The former is rhetoric and, in itself, largely harmless; the latter is madness and potentially catastrophic.
plus the list in my previous post, I counted 75 times where Russia threatened to use nuclear weapons. This shows who is really "desperate, dangerous and deluded," and it is from the same side that needed to get help from North Korea to try to save part of its territory.
Please explain the difference between an alliance between Russia and North Korea Vs Ukraine and NATO? If you're going to criticize the former, then please show consistency and apply the same metric to the latter, otherwise it smacks of:
'it's okay if we do it, but it's not okay for you to do it'. Btw, Russia doesn't need the North Koreans, they want to be involved as a way of showing solidarity and commitment to the Russians and to gain military experience. And it has the added benefit of putting the wind up the collective west - and you it would seem! Besides, Ukraine has all but lost control of the Kursk region: it's yet another military disaster. This was the case long before the arrival of the North Koreans. The Ukrainian forces that remain are largely cut off and basically have two choices: surrender or be killed.
The firing of long range missiles at military targets in Russia is a way to help Ukraine keep control of the Russian territory in the Kursk Oblast for a better negotiating position after Trump inevitably stops aid to Ukraine early in his term.
Firing missiles into Russia does the
exact opposite of what you outline as it will make the Russians even more determined to continue with their military operation and far less likely to be conciliatory at the negotiating table. That said, I take some encouragement from your tacit implication that the war is lost and Ukraine will have to negotiate a peace settlement. If they want a good deal, they ought to do pretty much the exact opposite of everything they're doing at the moment - otherwise they'll likely end up with nothing.
And by the way, there is a possibility Trump might be able to have the U.S. leave NATO,
so you might want to brush up on your Russian since the Russians in the UK might need to call on their homeland for protection.
Trump taking the U.S. out of NATO would be excellent news and receive my full support, 100%. It's a totally pointless organisation that does no good for the world and serves no purpose other than to generate huge revenue for the military industrial complex.
Lastly, I urge you to watch the two videos in my last post and, in particular, consider your answer to the question posed by Judge Napolitano to Prof. Jeffrey Sachs in the second video around the 13.00' mark. So, tell us R_L: how would you feel?
Tim.
