Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,327 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 10 hours, 27 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It seems that all Stoltenberg said is that Ukraine can join NATO after “victory”. But “victory” (in the sense of driving Russia troops out of and ethnically cleansing the Donbass and Crimea of pro-Russians) is completely unrealistic, that could be never.
And then there’s this:
Apparently — or ostensibly — the Hungarian government objects to Ukraine oppressing its Hungarian-speaking minority.
Practically Ukraine is part of NATO, they have been providing Ukraine modern weapon and logistic support for almost a years and there are evidences indicating that USA troops are participating in the war
Now that TS is gone, I want to ask again: why is Russia the only power constantly threatening nuclear use?
——————————————————————————————————————-That is the only force that they have against NATO, and they are not going to use it either, the other side has more atomic weapons, they have been threatening each other for a long time, and they did not use during the Cuban crisis. Japan was a scientific experiment on human beings
PS: Don’t worry about TS, he was properly kicked out and we are going to kick out all trolls and all those that help trolls, and all those that want to discredit the Socialist Party. Matt and I we would have kicked him out immediately
Youtubers are really hyping up the nuclear war angle; really pushing catastrophism.
Do you think all this military muscle-flexing by all states at the moment is to divert workers from class issues and climate change? And to reinforce patriotic hysteria?
What is the real reason they are doing all this now, more than the usual?
Because there’s a war on between NATO and Russia. And war stories and scare stories sell newspapers and that attracts revenue from advertisers.
What if Article 5 is triggered? Movimiento says no nuclear weapons will ever be used, but, because of Article 5, NATO will be obliged to, won’t it?
No it won’t. All it says is that if one NATO state is attacked all the other NATO member states are obliged to help it. It doesn’t say that they have to drop a nuclear bomb on the attacking country. Where did you get that from?
But it obliges all of NATO to officially declare war, whereas at the moment it is unofficial. And surely, where Europe is concerned, an official and open war with Russia could not but be nuclear.
Hi ALB,
It has been a while since I said hello to you!
The use of tactical nuclear weapons would have seemed in the domain of an existential exercise over a year ago.
I remember chatting with friends that Russia would not use a land invasion- the idea seemed barbaric and out of step. But it happened.
What concerns me is the use of the demonstration of such a weapon out of spite and shock- to shock Ukraine into submission on a local level.
I hope not… the tantrums of oligarchy seem unfettered by societal accountability. Like kids smashing their toys if asked to share… mere tantrum and reckless spite.
Sorry my post is less than elegant today and more emotive than critique.
If the psychology of an unpredictable ruling class is pathological- who knows what they would do.
I dare say it points again to the only solution: socialism or barbarismI must say: it feels easier to post my attempts to grapple with this topic without TS hurling putdowns on my humble remarks and questions.
Even more, Donald trump said that NATO was not longer needed because it was created to stop any conventional military action initiated by the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union created the Warsaw pact but it was not in order to detonate atomic bombs
During the time of wars a bunch of conspiracist and psychopaths are always creating scary theories and during the Cuban missiles crisis they propagated more than now along with the scare of Soviet/Cuban communism
It did show the military weakness of the Soviet Union and they were forced to initiate heavy military spending in conventional weapons which also contributed to its fall along with the inefficiency of state capitalism
Yes, but in 1962 the Soviet Union was not facing war on its borders, threatening its regime’s existence, so it could back down.
Spot the difference. Well, there isn’t much. Western regimes like the US treat their dissidents in much the same way as the Russian regime does if this report is to be believed…
I came across this from a site called “legitgov”….
3 St. Louis residents indicted on charges of spreading ‘disinformation,’ promoting pro-Russian ‘propaganda,’ and ‘sowing discord’ | 20 April 2023 | A federal grand jury has charged three St. Louis residents with illegally pushing pro-Russian “propaganda” and “misinformation” about Ukraine and sowing discord across Missouri, Georgia and Florida through the African People’s Socialist Party. The indictment alleges that African People’s Socialist Party Chairman Omali Yesh-tela and members Penny Joanne Hess and Jesse Nevel acted as illegal agents of the Russian government without notifying the U.S. attorney general. They each face up to 10 years in prison for that charge. They also face up to five years in prison for conspiring to have U.S. citizens act as illegal agents. The indictment alleges Russian national Aleksandr Viktorovich Ionov founded the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia, a Moscow-based organization run by the Russian government, to promote pro-Russian “propaganda” and create influence campaigns among political groups across the country, including the African People’s Socialist Party… It says that Ionov would appear on video calls hosted by the party in which he likened support to Ukraine to supporting Nazis [which is EXACTLY the case] and that Yesh-tela made statements supporting Russia.”
For comparison here is what the Russian regime does…
“Then on Monday, opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza was jailed for treason and spreading “false information” about Russia’s war in Ukraine. His 25-year sentence was three times longer than any previously imposed for speaking out against the Russian invasion.”
Here’s what Article 5 of NATO says:
“Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”It does not say anything about using nuclear weapons or even about declaring war, just about taking “such action as it [a member state] deems necessary”. You could say that NATO’s reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an example of what could happen under Article 5.
In any event, Russia is highly unlikely to mount an armed attack on a NATO member state. So that all this is academic and speculation.
It is also unlikely that NATO will mount an armed attack on Russia. In fact, they seem to have told Ukraine not to do this either.
The crunch would come if ever Ukraine were to be in a position to invade and conquer Crimea. Even then it can be doubted that Russia would use nuclear weapons, though it could threaten to (though only against Ukraine). It has plenty of “conventional” weapons it could use or threaten to use to flatten Kiev or some other Ukrainian city.
So-called “conventional” warfare is bad enough (as we seeing daily in Ukraine).
Interesting story in RT, that donated equipment from NATO is having compatibility issues, particularly ammunition for Leopard tanks. Now, I was under the impression that NATO used interchangeable standardised ammunition types precisely so equipment could be shared, so maybe this is exposing flaws in the logistics and operations of such a simple idea when co-ordinating across different states.
Of course, propaganda, but it’s a plausible sort. Likewise, Sputnik is claiming the Ukrainian offensive is delayed due to lack of donated materiel supplies reaching the front.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.