Posted on 05/16/2022 10:20:51 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I’m sure there are adventurists who would love to do so. But I had more Latin America and the Caribbean in mind
You are incorrectly framing the issue (creating a misleading context) by posing a question containing a false assumption. There are namely NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS stationed in any NATO country bordering Russia*. There ARE, however, NUCLEAR WEAPONS stationed in Russia - which borders some NATO countries. Do you thus appreciate the irony of your question?
Now, do you want to discuss hypotheticals? E.g., if White Russia wanted to sever its ties with the Russian Federation and ally with Red China...
My suggestion: Let's not waste time fantasizing about hypotheticals. Let's instead discuss what is actually happening here: One country invading a peaceful neighbor, annexing territory, launching hypersonic missiles at non-legitimate targets, etc.
Regards,
*I'm ignoring, for convenience, the case of Alaskan territorial waters - but that would then be a two-way issue.
Russkies have a long record of building walls to keep people captive.
You missed the point, or avoided it.
The U.S. made threats about this base, as Russia at one point made about Ukraine.
NATO was spreading further and further east to Russia, country after country, even though it was created to deal with the USSR but the USSR broke up.
The U.S. has umpteen bases around the world and flips out over a Chinese base in the Solomon Islands.
So who are the ones reacting and who is precipitating?
It’s best that the U.S., Russia, and China all withdraw back within their borders, Golden Rule style.
“Keep poking a bear, and eventually, it will swipe back.”
Right, and keep threating to use nukes and eventually you may not get the response you were so desperately hoping for.
If you don’t want nuclear weapons in Russia bordering a NATO country then have no NATO countries bordering Russia and then Russia will have no right to ever declare they will have an alliance like NATO that borders upon the U.S.
You have to go the route of the Golden Rule though and stop all aggression.
You keep trying to bring up the Cuban Missile Crisis as if it works for analogy purposes, pushing some kind of moral equivalence of Monroe Doctrine = Stalin/Putin/CatherineTheGreat Doctrine.
If it were true then Vlad should have invaded Estonia more than 20 years ago. These countries are former vassal states looking for protection from a traditional tyrant state. The Monroe Doctrine was aimed at zero former vassal states and it was no justification of invasions of conquest.
Your pushing a false equivalency analogy, a classic fallacy.
No, I simply didn't "take the bait," but rather responded to exactly the relevant point.
The U.S. made threats about this base, as Russia at one point made about Ukraine.
Factually incorrect! Equivocation Fallacy! The U.S. at no time threatened to invade the Solomon Islands, launch hypersonic missiles at schoolhouses, rape the inhabitants, "denazify and demilitarize" the country, and/or annex territory!
More importantly: Forget "threatening." America did none of those things!
NATO was spreading further and further east to Russia, country after country, even though it was created to deal with the USSR but the USSR broke up.
So sad for Russia! Makes Russia wanna cry!
Sorry, but after the well-deserved dissolution of the U.S.S.R., its successor state, the Russian Federation, retained all of the nukes and soon began behaving even more recklessly than its predecessor!
Russia is getting everything coming to it - in spades!
Regards,
"False Equivalency" Fallacy!
China is an authoritarian state, feared by all its neighbors, with a terrible human rights record. It is quite obviously attempting to expand its territorial claims by annexing islands and threatening its neighbors. The only "friend" on its borders is the puppet state of N. Korea!
Russia is an authoritarian state, sinking into totalitarianism, feared and hated by all its neighbors. It has a clear record of invading its neighbors - "in order to 'help' them / because they 'requested' it - and then holding sham referendums or simply outright seizing territory (South Ossetia, Luhansk "P.R.," Donetsk "P.R.," Crimea) in order to expand its territory and aggrandize itself. It is obviously trying to re-establish the evil, hated Soviet Union - an objective that its current leaders aren't even trying to hide.
To attempt to establish any sort of "moral equivalency" between these two Evil Empires and the good ol' U.S. of A. is repugnant!
Are you even an American?
Regards,
Putin has passed his tipping point of sane the insiders may be moving faster than expected.
America is a Representative Republic.
The Founders eschewed Empire which you support.
You are a warmongering military interventionist neocon that obviously supports Odumba who said the U.S. will lead from behind as NATO offensively bombed Libya unprovoked on unproven allegations that gaddafi was going to kill thousands of his own people.
And you wrap yourself in the flag doing so. So when are you going to tell me to stop worrying and love the bomb, maniac?
Your brand is getting us to the edge of WW3.
Lastly, learn some history:
WION, Gravitas Plus: Did NATO push Ukraine into war?
“Ukraine conflict has been ‘westsplained’ enough. On Gravitas Plus, Palki Sharma tells you how Western arrogance & NATO’s expansionism are also to blame, how their actions precipitated the crisis in Ukraine.”
Russia is quite welcome to form a military coalition or bloc with bordering countries and station nuclear weapons in them, for all I care.
Oh, wait! No country bordering Russia wants to ally with them and/or allow Russia to station nuclear weapons there!
I wonder why that is?! Maybe because Russia has a clear history of grabbing land from border states?
You have to go the route of the Golden Rule though and stop all aggression.
You do see that that is not equivalent, don't you?
Russia has nuclear weapons. Russia borders NATO countries. NONE of those NATO countries have nuclear weapons stationed on their territory!
So a nuclear-armed Russia is, by your logic, allowed to border NATO countries, but sovereign, nuclear-free countries bordering Russia are not allowed to choose to which alliance they wish to belong.
So much for your "Golden Rule!"
This is like Sister Dominique telling Mike Tyson and Danny Devito, who have been bickering with each other, to both surrender their pocket knives and go back to the playground and "play nice" - while she returns to the Nuns' Lounge.
Regards,
So scurry back to your warmongering, Bush/Obama league, establishment, globalist pals.
But have a good one as the real Americans, who support the Founders vision, talk about these issues.
The Founders never envisaged a world in which the U.S. would be the sole hyperpower.
The U.S. has not been an "empire" since it voluntarily relinquished the Philippines after WW II.
Since WW II, the U.S. has a clear track record of eschewing "empire," during which time it has sought only voluntary allies, and not grabbed territory from an ally, border state, or even vanquished foe.
NATO is the most-successfully military alliance in the history of this planet.
It was formed chiefly to counter the U.S.S.R.
Now, the avowed successor state of the U.S.S.R., is again terrorizing Europe and openly threatening World Peace (nukes).
The U.S. must respond. The isolationism of the pre-war years cannot be indulged in again.
Regards,
Ping.
cuba doesn’t share a land border with the U.S. and neither does Turkey with Russia. So it’s ok for Turkey to have U.S nukes but not ok for Cuba to host Russian ones if they wanted to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.