ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Can, but haven't and don't need to. It's not like a bunch of NATO countries don't have SLBM's and we don't have ICBM's and strategic nuclear bombers capable of targeting Moscow and every other system city.

Your "gotcha" is totally irrelevant.

---

With the proximity Ukraine provides, the warheads would arrive before antimissile systems could retaliate. That's the gotcha.

If china had missiles in North Carolina, our technology could not intercept them before they hit DC. Especially not with the supersonic delivery systems. The warheads would go off before the defections systems started blaring.

The Debt said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Can, but haven't and don't need to. It's not like a bunch of NATO countries don't have SLBM's and we don't have ICBM's and strategic nuclear bombers capable of targeting Moscow and every other system city.

Your "gotcha" is totally irrelevant.

---

With the proximity Ukraine provides, the warheads would arrive before antimissile systems could retaliate. That's the gotcha.

If china had missiles in North Carolina, our technology could not intercept them before they hit DC. Especially not with the supersonic delivery systems. The warheads would go off before the defections systems started blaring.

---

Which current NATO countries bordering Russia do we have nukes in?

The difference between staging missiles in Ukraine vs Latvia or Estonia is so utterly negligible so as to be meaningless if we're arguing from your premise. Oh, but in the decades we've had the opportunity to we've not stationed nukes there. But we're suddenly going to jump up and do it in Ukraine despite the fact that they're literally unable to join NATO due to the territorial dispute Russia provoked 8 years ago.

Is every warhead a nuclear warhead?

Hmm...I guess you havent kept up with conventional warheads quarterly.

The Debt said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

The Debt said:

---

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

Ukraine wants to keep their land and natural resources? How dare they.

---

Nice strawman.

I'm telling you what's at stake. If NATO kept their word and refused to move east, or if ukraine stayed neutral, both nato and ukraine would be making money from these resources. That is not to excuse russian involvement. But let's not kid ourselves, this is an abstraction above the popular narrative.

This "unprovoked" invasion.

---

Your quote here is clearly implying you think NATO/Ukraine somehow provoked an invasion.

---

They changed the status quo. Had they kept the status quo oil would be flowing west and we would be talking about global recovery after covid.

But since the coup in 2014, but since the talks of bringing ukr into nato, there have been plenty of attempts to keep the old order of things. Full disclosure, the black sea oil discoveries are pretty dang recent. Like last 5 years, recent.

Now there is super incentive for NATO (think EU, ms maddow) to secure those sources. Why they want to press membership for ukraine is their calculus.

But as I said in the quote you brought forth, russia is primarily culpable for it. You have the "why"; it was a race to secure this before the west did. And the west certainly wanted to, whether Maddow admits it or not.

---

Russia is not "primarily" culpable. Only one country invaded the other one and they are the only ones culpable for what's happened.

The Debt said:

---

Is every warhead a nuclear warhead?

Hmm...I guess you havent kept up with conventional warheads quarterly.

---

Then that further invalidates your argument. If WE already have warheads in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, subs in the Baltic… Ukraine is going to be what REALLY puts us over the top? Riiiiiiight. You know, even though they can't attain NATO membership anyway?

Oh, and it's not like the US needs NATO to put warheads in Ukraine. If the US wanted to then all they'd have to do is orchestrate an alliance with Ukraine independently. Which they never did. You keep acting like the US needed NATO to do any of these things. If they wanted to do it, and Ukraine wanted to do it, then it would have been done.

And conversely, does Russia have warheads in Belarus? Does it have warheads near its borders? Why is this not a threat to other countries? Intriguing double standard.

Thread getting spicy. Good. Good.

Rossticus said:

---

The Debt said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Can, but haven't and don't need to. It's not like a bunch of NATO countries don't have SLBM's and we don't have ICBM's and strategic nuclear bombers capable of targeting Moscow and every other system city.

Your "gotcha" is totally irrelevant.

---

With the proximity Ukraine provides, the warheads would arrive before antimissile systems could retaliate. That's the gotcha.

If china had missiles in North Carolina, our technology could not intercept them before they hit DC. Especially not with the supersonic delivery systems. The warheads would go off before the defections systems started blaring.

---

Which current NATO countries bordering Russia do we have nukes in?

The difference between staging missiles in Ukraine vs Latvia or Estonia is so utterly negligible so as to be meaningless if we're arguing from your premise. Oh, but in the decades we've had the opportunity to we've not stationed nukes there. But we're suddenly going to jump up and do it in Ukraine despite the fact that they're literally unable to join NATO due to the territorial dispute Russia provoked 8 years ago.

---

you still don't get it.

it doesn't matter what we will likely do now or in the future.

its about what NATO or the US could do if the door is open.

to putin MAD is the only thing keeping Russia relevant and safe. he believes heartily that must be kept in place.

Ukraine joining NATO seriously ****s that up.

i am not saying its right, or rational. i am simply saying it IS.

black_ice said:

---

Thread getting spicy. Good. Good.

---

The Debt said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Can, but haven't and don't need to. It's not like a bunch of NATO countries don't have SLBM's and we don't have ICBM's and strategic nuclear bombers capable of targeting Moscow and every other system city.

Your "gotcha" is totally irrelevant.

---

With the proximity Ukraine provides, the warheads would arrive before antimissile systems could retaliate. That's the gotcha.

If china had missiles in North Carolina, our technology could not intercept them before they hit DC. Especially not with the supersonic delivery systems. The warheads would go off before the defections systems started blaring.

---

An SLBM could hit Russian in 10 minutes. An ICBM would take longer, but flying at mach 23 Russia has nothing that could possibly intercept it. A B-2 could potentially drop nukes over Russia and no would ever know until they went off.

Again, irrelevant.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

The Debt said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Can, but haven't and don't need to. It's not like a bunch of NATO countries don't have SLBM's and we don't have ICBM's and strategic nuclear bombers capable of targeting Moscow and every other system city.

Your "gotcha" is totally irrelevant.

---

With the proximity Ukraine provides, the warheads would arrive before antimissile systems could retaliate. That's the gotcha.

If china had missiles in North Carolina, our technology could not intercept them before they hit DC. Especially not with the supersonic delivery systems. The warheads would go off before the defections systems started blaring.

---

An SLBM could hit Russian in 10 minutes. An ICBM would take longer, but flying at mach 23 Russia has nothing that could possibly intercept it. A B-2 could potentially drop nukes over Russia and no would ever know until they went off.

Again, irrelevant.

---

So you wouldn't have any issues with Russia or China parking missiles in Mexico or Cuba?

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

The Debt said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Can, but haven't and don't need to. It's not like a bunch of NATO countries don't have SLBM's and we don't have ICBM's and strategic nuclear bombers capable of targeting Moscow and every other system city.

Your "gotcha" is totally irrelevant.

---

With the proximity Ukraine provides, the warheads would arrive before antimissile systems could retaliate. That's the gotcha.

If china had missiles in North Carolina, our technology could not intercept them before they hit DC. Especially not with the supersonic delivery systems. The warheads would go off before the defections systems started blaring.

---

Which current NATO countries bordering Russia do we have nukes in?

The difference between staging missiles in Ukraine vs Latvia or Estonia is so utterly negligible so as to be meaningless if we're arguing from your premise. Oh, but in the decades we've had the opportunity to we've not stationed nukes there. But we're suddenly going to jump up and do it in Ukraine despite the fact that they're literally unable to join NATO due to the territorial dispute Russia provoked 8 years ago.

---

you still don't get it.

it doesn't matter what we will likely do now or in the future.

its about what NATO or the US could do if the door is open.

to putin MAD is the only thing keeping Russia relevant and safe. he believes heartily that must be kept in place.

Ukraine joining NATO seriously ****s that up.

i am not saying its right, or rational. i am simply saying it IS.

---

And therein lies the issue. Rationality. You can neither expect nor require other countries/peoples to sacrifice their sovereign rights in order to placate the irrational thoughts and behaviors of a wing-nut autocrat. If Russia had shown the propensity or even willingness to live and let live then that would be one thing.

However, Russia has proven that if a neighbor is perceived to be without means of deterrence then they will be compromised from within and quite possibly subject to military aggression at such time as it may happen to suit Russia.

We've seen that a willingness to look the other way emboldens Russia and paved the way for continued similar action. Judging by that pattern it seems unlikely that conflict could be avoided indefinitely.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

The Debt said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Can, but haven't and don't need to. It's not like a bunch of NATO countries don't have SLBM's and we don't have ICBM's and strategic nuclear bombers capable of targeting Moscow and every other system city.

Your "gotcha" is totally irrelevant.

---

With the proximity Ukraine provides, the warheads would arrive before antimissile systems could retaliate. That's the gotcha.

If china had missiles in North Carolina, our technology could not intercept them before they hit DC. Especially not with the supersonic delivery systems. The warheads would go off before the defections systems started blaring.

---

An SLBM could hit Russian in 10 minutes. An ICBM would take longer, but flying at mach 23 Russia has nothing that could possibly intercept it. A B-2 could potentially drop nukes over Russia and no would ever know until they went off.

Again, irrelevant.

---

So you wouldn't have any issues with Russia or China parking missiles in Mexico or Cuba?

---

No, because they would never get used. I'd lol at Russia. It isn't the 60s anymore. No one is going to war with Russia unless they start it.

Same thing with China.

...phase of the war.

Called him today for the first time since:

- "I pray every day for our brave Ukrainian warriors (воины)"
- "Everyone is united - the people believe in victory"
- "My (pro-Russian) Church is splitting off from Moscow"

— Konstantin Kisin (@KonstantinKisin) April 27, 2022

I've heard a lot of people in Ukraine say that Putin has done something Ukrainians have been struggling with for centuries: forged a nation.

I'm starting to think they're right.

— Konstantin Kisin (@KonstantinKisin) April 27, 2022

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-amal-clooney-pushes-ukraine-war-crimes-justice-2022-04-27/

This stuff isn't proved by politicians, it's proved in tribunals by dedicated and tireless human rights lawyers. There are few in the world who can match Clooney's calibre. If there is any hope for international accountability, it will be because people like her stepped up.

— Oz Katerji (@OzKaterji) April 27, 2022

Well, this is indeed a unique cohort.

The 8 lawmakers who voted against a bill urging the U.S. to seize the frozen assets of Russian oligarchs and use the proceeds to help Ukraine:

Cawthorn R-NC
Greene R-GA
Massie R-KY
Roy R-TX
Bush D-MO
Ocasio-Cortez D-NY
Omar D-MN
Tlaib D-MI

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) April 27, 2022

Summary text:

Asset Seizure for Ukraine Reconstruction Act

This bill authorizes the President to, subject to certain conditions, seize assets belonging to a foreign person whose wealth is derived in part through political support for or corruption linked to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Specifically, for two years starting from this bill's enactment, the President may seize such assets if (1) Russia remains engaged in a conflict of territorial conquest in Ukraine; (2) the President has imposed sanctions on the owner of the assets for reasons related to corruption, human rights violations, malign influence, or conflicts in Ukraine; and (3) the assets are valued at over $5 million.

Such seized assets may be liquidated, and the resulting funds may only be used for specified purposes, including (1) the post-conflict reconstruction of Ukraine, (2) humanitarian assistance and refugee support for the Ukrainian people, (3) weapons for Ukraine's uniformed military forces, and (4) humanitarian and development assistance for the Russian people.

Canada lawmakers vote unanimously to label Russia's acts in Ukraine as 'genocide' https://t.co/mjIYW9mHR7 pic.twitter.com/gk0brZpzG3

— Reuters World (@ReutersWorld) April 27, 2022

I translated the full text and it’s even more disgusting than it sounds https://t.co/csqQzTNqpG pic.twitter.com/x2NEYDlyTr

— Jack_ryan 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@terror_studies) April 28, 2022

Going to throw this in as a reminder because these are Russia's allies. They're who Russia has supported and worked with. Who they helped to commit the same atrocities they're committing now. The atrocities they said were hoaxes, made up, done by the people to themselves just as they are now.

Video proof of 2013 Tadamon, Syria massacre by Syrian regime released. Nearly 300 civilians, incl women & children were executed & buried in mass grave by regime militia. Videos and pics given to researchers in Amsterdam to prepare evidence of war crimes & identify the killers. pic.twitter.com/Ft2Q0bRtsn

— Muhammad Najem (@muhammadnajem20) April 28, 2022

Should probably throw this in too…

“the Buk missile which downed Malaysian airliner MH17 on 17 July 2014 came from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile brigade which is a unit of the Russian army from Kursk in the Russian Federation”https://t.co/vIBPGbe7YZ

— E V Savage (@EmpriDomini) April 28, 2022

The Debt said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

The Debt said:

---

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

Ukraine wants to keep their land and natural resources? How dare they.

---

Nice strawman.

I'm telling you what's at stake. If NATO kept their word and refused to move east, or if ukraine stayed neutral, both nato and ukraine would be making money from these resources. That is not to excuse russian involvement. But let's not kid ourselves, this is an abstraction above the popular narrative.

This "unprovoked" invasion.

---

Russia wild have invaded Ukraine no matter what. Their "provocation" is nothing more than propaganda. They've made land grab after land grab for the past 20 years, and their m.o. is Anaya the same. Fund and arm some border region separatist movement or declare "ethnic Russians" are being attacked, use that as an excuse to intervene, and take the land or install a puppet government.

The idea that anyone "provoked" Russia into invading a neighbor after building up hundreds of thousands of troops on their border for months with no response is laughable bull**** made up for suckers.

---

Perhaps. And if the playbook is that obvious how do you counter it?

It seems like if you know your opponents moves before he makes them, you would have an effective counter punch or at least a plan. Unless perhaps you just shrug your shoulders.

---

Well one move would be to freeze $300 billion in reserves (20% of a year's GDP for Russia) Putin moronically left in Western banks when he pulled the trigger on the special military operation. That seems like it would have been a pretty easy blunder to avoid.

I guess another move would be to arm Putin's foe if it seemed like he bit off more than he could immediately chew. If we're feeling really squirrelly we see if a country with no navy can sink his flagship on the Black Sea for the usual $1 bet. [/Trading Places]

And then we sit back to see if he can remain in the Premier League, or if Russia is relegated.

Make sure to also include when Russia shot down a plane with the Polish President and top brass. I'm sure Poland provoked them somehow that this was entirely justified.


https://observer.com/2018/05/evidence-shows-russia-had-role-in-smolensk-crash-killed-kaczynski/

I posted it some pages back but couldn't find it again. Thanks!

Some of Europe’s largest energy companies are preparing to use a new payment system for Russian gas demanded by the Kremlin, which critics say will undercut EU sanctions, threaten the bloc’s unity and deliver billions in cash to Russia’s economy. https://t.co/FlLLmXYC98

— max seddon (@maxseddon) April 28, 2022

That's an interesting group-- the extremes join up for one moment.

Today I gave Ukraine’s minister of defense @oleksiireznikov a T-shirt from @saintjavelin

And I gave another one to him to give to @ZelenskyyUa

He said “perfect I’m seeing him later!” pic.twitter.com/HkvZDA8Fze

— Christian Borys (@ItsBorys) April 28, 2022

Says the country who has a history of selling weapons to every third world dictatorship and terrorist org with a pulse. LMFAO!

⚡️“The tendency to flood Ukraine with weapons, especially heavy weapons, are acts that threaten the security of the continent and cause violence. 'instability', targeting Western arms shipments.” - Dmitry Peskov (Kremlin Spokesman)⚡️

— spook (@spook_info) April 28, 2022

Rossticus said:

---

Canada lawmakers vote unanimously to label Russia's acts in Ukraine as 'genocide' https://t.co/mjIYW9mHR7 pic.twitter.com/gk0brZpzG3

— Reuters World (@ReutersWorld) April 27, 2022

---

Does Trudeau have a veto power he can use to keep this from embarrassing his fellow traveler in Russia?

Rossticus said:

---

Says the country who has a history of selling weapons to every third world dictatorship and terrorist org with a pulse. LMFAO!

⚡️“The tendency to flood Ukraine with weapons, especially heavy weapons, are acts that threaten the security of the continent and cause violence. 'instability', targeting Western arms shipments.” - Dmitry Peskov (Kremlin Spokesman)⚡️

— spook (@spook_info) April 28, 2022

---

Ah, he's a "it's the guns fault" type of guy

You almost wonder if there has been an intentional internalized effort over the past 30 years to make Germany Russia's *****.

German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht revealed the terrible condition of the German army:

"On paper, we have 350 Puma infantry fighting vehicles, 150 can be used. Of the 51 Tiger helicopters, only 9 are combat-ready," she said.https://t.co/4UF6MmCe8j

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) April 28, 2022

Rossticus said:

---

Summary text:

Asset Seizure for Ukraine Reconstruction Act

This bill authorizes the President to, subject to certain conditions, seize assets belonging to a foreign person whose wealth is derived in part through political support for or corruption linked to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Specifically, for two years starting from this bill's enactment, the President may seize such assets if (1) Russia remains engaged in a conflict of territorial conquest in Ukraine; (2) the President has imposed sanctions on the owner of the assets for reasons related to corruption, human rights violations, malign influence, or conflicts in Ukraine; and (3) the assets are valued at over $5 million.

Such seized assets may be liquidated, and the resulting funds may only be used for specified purposes, including (1) the post-conflict reconstruction of Ukraine, (2) humanitarian assistance and refugee support for the Ukrainian people, (3) weapons for Ukraine's uniformed military forces, and (4) humanitarian and development assistance for the Russian people.

---

The problem there is the Geneva convention's stance on collective punishment. This wont hold up in the courts if passed.

Unless we are throwing out a century's jurisprudence on this matter.

The Debt said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Summary text:

Asset Seizure for Ukraine Reconstruction Act

This bill authorizes the President to, subject to certain conditions, seize assets belonging to a foreign person whose wealth is derived in part through political support for or corruption linked to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Specifically, for two years starting from this bill's enactment, the President may seize such assets if (1) Russia remains engaged in a conflict of territorial conquest in Ukraine; (2) the President has imposed sanctions on the owner of the assets for reasons related to corruption, human rights violations, malign influence, or conflicts in Ukraine; and (3) the assets are valued at over $5 million.

Such seized assets may be liquidated, and the resulting funds may only be used for specified purposes, including (1) the post-conflict reconstruction of Ukraine, (2) humanitarian assistance and refugee support for the Ukrainian people, (3) weapons for Ukraine's uniformed military forces, and (4) humanitarian and development assistance for the Russian people.

---

The problem there is the Geneva convention's stance on collective punishment. This wont hold up in the courts if passed.

Unless we are throwing out a century's jurisprudence on this matter.

---

It's not collective. It stipulates that the President has to have imposed sanctions on a person on an individual level. That's how it passes legal scrutiny.

Rossticus said:

---

You almost wonder if there has been an intentional internalized effort over the past 30 years to make Germany Russia's *****.

German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht revealed the terrible condition of the German army:

"On paper, we have 350 Puma infantry fighting vehicles, 150 can be used. Of the 51 Tiger helicopters, only 9 are combat-ready," she said.https://t.co/4UF6MmCe8j

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) April 28, 2022

---

Germany has always been super dependent on foreign gas. Nazis needed the Balkans or else the war was over.

When we learned two months ago that Russia has been paying for the green movement in europe...it makes you wonder who is paying ours.