Thread 513555417

Why is Russia worried about NATO being on their border?
It's not like NATO would randomly just invade Russia. Russia literally has nukes...

kazakhstan and belarus should reintegrate into russia
they can have autonomy if they want as long as they raise the soldier levies when the tsar demands it

>>513555417 (OP)
Nobody wants to invade Russia. There is no propaganda for it. There is no public support for it. Everyone wants the war to end, but obviously see Russia as the agressor.

>>513555612
belarus is already a satellite state anyway

>>513555417 (OP)
because russia is run by a klepokratic regime of billionaire jews that want to keep everyone paranoid so they can keep leeching

>>513555417 (OP)
They wanted to announce ussr 2.0 + get more people in it, since they plan to turn all commoners in holops (slaves)

>>513555417 (OP)
Imagine is Russia is funding weapons thru mexico

>>513555417 (OP)
Russia wants to invade and annex every nearby country. Nato has the ability to get in their way.

>>513555612
Belarus will eventually be integrated.
There's no need to integrate Kazakhstan

>>513556117
China is doing that, israel is doing that. Do you really think russians are not involved in that? You chomskiates are so silly.

>>513555417 (OP)
It's all in Zbig
The long-term strategy is NATO expansion and then fragmentation of Russia, similar to what happened in Yugoslavia.

>>513555417 (OP)
Because Finland and Sweden is on their border.

>>513555767
>N000000000 n000000obody wants to invade Russia.
>In REALITY , Nato ignores all ww2 agreements and expands 20 countries to the west to Russian border.
>while overthrowing gov in Kiev
>and while trying to start ww2 in Ukraine against Russia
Nobody is buying this crap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

>>513556773
I'm talking about the people, not gayto zog faggots who profit from war. Especially in jewnited states.

>>513555417 (OP)
Why did the most prominent NATO members go along with bringing in new members right up to Russia's borders?

How does it benefit a defensive alliance to
>expand their obligations
>to defend countries that are much weaker than the existing membership
>and are also the most vulnerable since they border Russia
>while knowing that such a move can only antagonize and feed the paranoia of a potential adversary?

Were the U.S., U.K., and Germany just acting altruistically to help the people of Eastern Europe, with no concern for their own benefit?

>>513555417 (OP)
well nato is expanding toward russia, moving its border (nato doesnt have borders its member states do) closer so russia invades ukraine to solve this by moving russias border closer to nato you see...all smart people versed in history and military strategy know this, why even as far back as the year 956ad the cossack chieftans laid the foundation of what would....are you listending faggot because i'm not reading this shit again...pay attention prole...

>>513555417 (OP)
Atrocious take. If NATO can park missile interceptors right on the border shown on that map, then they can spawn camp Russian nuclear weapons (and aircraft) as they launch from the European part of Russia, as in west of the Ural mountains. This would enable NATO to launch a nuclear first strike and probably "win" (if you ignore causalities). Ukraine is Russia's Cuban missile crisis.

>>513555417 (OP)
Because imperialist russia needs a pretext for their aggressive expansionism and muh NATO encroachment is the best that apparatchiks could come up with...
>b-but muh missile interceptors right on our borders :((
Georgia had no missile interceptors and they got invaded and were forced to give up territory, anyway. There goes your whole narrative right out the window, dumbo.

>>513555417 (OP)
Why was US worried about Russian base in Cuba?
Don't Russian sailours deserve a warm millitary base? US got them all around the world?!
ITS NOT FAIR!

>>513559742
>imperialist russia
NATO didn't exist back then... i think you're confused, and infact actually don't know what you're talking about.

>>513559742
>Georgia had no missile interceptors and they got invaded

The U.S. was pushing for Georgian membership in NATO in April 2008, just months before hostilities with Russia broke out and while the country was already embroiled in a civil conflict.
But I'm sure the U.S. was just acting selflessly to protect the poor Georgian people.

>>513560816
>back then
Cope. There is no back then, russia is imperialist TODAY.

>>513555417 (OP)
they have things worse than nukes now days big dawg. a lot less detectable and as deadly. they can target any genome with a virus and have animals do the dirty work of carrying it to you.

>>513557774
And what should eastern Europe do?

>>513561660
It's best.

>>513561441
And? Russia was similarly making moves in Georgia with constant fsb cells since 2006 and building military bases, not just peacekeeping bases but forward bases, in disputed territories.
Why is Russia surprised that eastern Europe is so antagonistic to Russia when they themselves refuse to "play nice" and instead always insist on projecting force seemingly incapable of generating any soft power.

>>513561441
>But I'm sure the U.S. was just acting selflessly to protect the poor Georgian people.
I'm sure russia was just acting selflessly to protect the poor Georgian people by invading them while they were consumed by a civil war in order to steal their territory under the pretext of muh NATO expansion. How convenient, imperialists doing imperialist things.

>>513561897
>To play nice is to lay flat and let daddy to touch you in naughty places
Mon ami, Ukraine was given all sort of economic benefits for decades

>>513561441
Plus the US Dept of Defense had thier bio-labs there and CIA listening posts. Same shit as ukraine.
These morons running the government have one playbook they keep using

>>513557187
Which countries had democratic referendums regarding joining NATO?

>>513561660
>And what should eastern Europe do?
Look out for their own interests, of course. Which may include seeking NATO membership.
I don't fault those countries first seeking ties with the West, because they disproportionately benefit from them.
What I question is why my country and other powerful Western countries played along, if their interests are purely "defensive".

>>513562558
It would be cheaper and safer if the US, China, and Russia competed economically.

>>513561897
>Russia was similarly making moves in Georgia with constant fsb cells since 2006 and building military bases, not just peacekeeping bases but forward bases, in disputed territories

I won't claim that Russia was a selfless or innocent actor with regards to its neighbor. But one can rationally see why a regional power wants to control countries on its border.
But what "defensive" benefit does NATO get by pulling in far-flung countries like Georgia?

>>513562447
Whitch countries have a historic experience with Russia and whitch countries still invade others? Its not very difficult to manufacture consent. Just look at Finland and Sweden who just joined.

>>513561942
Russia was not morally justified in interfering with Georgia, but it's in their rational defensive interests to control a bordering state.
How was including Georgia in the rational defensive interests of NATO?

>>513562558
Having more meatshields between you and your main threat is good.

>>513562989
Fuck off retard
NATO countries invaded and colinized 75% of the planet at one time or another. You morons are eveywhere these days.

The UK is the only colonizer to leave behind half functional societies.

>>513562719
>It would be cheaper and safer if the US, China, and Russia competed economically.

I agree.

>>513556117

Nigga please. Russia has been supplying Americas enemies with weapons since at least WW2 ended.
It's kind of funny, Russia cries about the west giving Ukraine weapons. Meanwhile every single terrorist, insurgent force and dictators army is armed with Russian made weapons.

>>513563156
>Having more meatshields between you and your main threat is good.
Those meatshields are there whether or not their government is part of NATO.
But if they are part of NATO, you have to immediately come to their aid if attacked, instead of having the option to stand by and/or limit your assistance.

>>513563173
>muh zog
Eat shit and die kike rat.

>>513563284
Yes they supplied Nelson Mandela with weapons. Please cite one politician from a NATO country condeming Mandela please.
Also the CIA bought all of ukraines arms in the 90s to violate UN sanctions so folks like Sierra Leon could commit genocide.

>>513563489
Its funny when you nafo troons sperg out

>>513563640
Are you retarded or something? >>513557187

>>513562747
>But what "defensive" benefit does NATO get by pulling in far-flung countries like Georgia?
Collective defence, more members equals more strength. NATO doesnt pull anyone in, countries join because they border a violent aggressive imperialist state

>>513563379
If a hostile power starts attacking these meatshields then it's eventually going to get to you either way. Admitting said meatshields to NATO means you can train their armies to be useful. Plus in wartime it gives you an excuse to support them at a low cost to yourself and a high cost to your enemy. Article 5 is very vague as to how much you have to commit.

>>513563788
You have to be accepted into NATO by all members. "Countries just join" is a ridiculous cope.
Estonia troops can fit in a school bus, there's no "collective defence" here.

>>513563788
>NATO doesnt pull anyone in
Are you naive or a shill?
Its all about defense contracts and paying 10x the amount for arms. USAID spends BILLIONS rigging elections so pro NATO politicians get elected.

The first thing Zelensky did when elected was disband parliment so pro war politicians could be elected with USAID bux.

>>513563788
>Collective defence, more members equals more strength
Whatever strength you get from some 2nd tier country's outdated military is outweighed by the increased risk of being involved in their conflicts (which also become more likely as your adversary feels cornered). Not to mention increased logistical strain.
How much benefit do you think Georgia's 2008 military would have offered your country? Did they have cutting edge weapons, a sizable manpower reserve, or a highly developed defense industry?

>>513562989
You didn't answer my question mister esti
Can you answer my question or does it inconvenience your thought process?

>>513563981
Ukrainian army was trained to NATO standards even though it's not a member.

>>513555417 (OP)
Why was America worried about Warsaw Pact in Cuba?
It's not like Warsaw Pact would randomly just invade America. America literally had nukes...

>>513555417 (OP)
russia can only attack the countries on its borders (because it's poor and has no projection of power capabilities).
Having its neighbours in NATO means that russia cannot attack those neighbours.
Simple as.

>>513563788
>NATO doesnt pull anyone in, countries join because they border a violent aggressive imperialist state
NATO doesn't absorb new members by force but they aren't just passively waiting for new members to apply, either. And the populations of existing members have little to no effective input in its expansion.

>>513555767

I think they want to destroy it, and balkanize it and steal the resources for themselves. Whoever they is.

>>513564252
Ukraine is a de facto NATO member.
imperialist russia lost.

>>513564179
Georgia had whores to bribe western politicians with.

>>513564218
>tf
c'mon, it doesn't have thought process

>>513563981
>If a hostile power starts attacking these meatshields then it's eventually going to get to you either way.
Not every hostile power is bent on world domination. But by entangling your country in an increasingly expanding alliance, you increase the risk than an adversary will have to attack you out of necessity.

>Admitting said meatshields to NATO means you can train their armies to be useful.

You can have joint training excercises ir exchanges without having to extend membership in a defensive alliance.

>Plus in wartime it gives you an excuse to support them at a low cost to yourself and a high cost to your enemy. Article 5 is very vague as to how much you have to commit.
You can still send support without membership, if that is in your nation's interest.
But if balk on Article 5 commitments (even if it's not a violation), you weaken confidence in the alliance as whole.

>>513555417 (OP)
Well, what would you prefer:
>I hold a loaded pistol to your forehead
>I keep a loaded pistol in my holster
>I have a loaded pistol laying around at home
>I could get a pistol somewhere if I really wanted to
>Hey how about we both get rid of our pistols?

>>513564280
Because the USA put nukes in Turkey that could reach Moscow so Russia was going to put nukes in Cuba that could reach DC.
Its rocket science NATO retards cant understand

>>513564295
> Simple as.
Not as simple. Russia can of course attack any country and there is no logical transition from this to NATO doing anything about it, only some letters printed on paper and hopeful expectations.

>>513564735
You seem honest but this is rediculous
>Not every hostile power is bent on world domination.

>https://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated

>So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

>>513564570
Ukraine will lose access to the Black Sea if they are as out of touch as you seem to be.

>>513564421
That means installing western puppets. No way that happens in Russia. They already had cheap resources out of Russia. Its not that. Its plain old divide and conquer

>>513564295
>russia can only attack the countries on its borders (because it's poor and has no projection of power capabilities).
>Having its neighbours in NATO means that russia cannot attack those neighbours.
>Simple as
Why is it my concern if Russia is attacking its neighbors?
They're currently struggling against a poor, small neighbor who isn't a NATO member. What threat could they possibly pose to Germany, the U.K., or especially the U.S.?

>>513556773

It's actually insane that the NATO shills refuse to acknowledge the encroachment issue, and then double down on it by bringing sweden and finland in.

>>513564735
> But by entangling your country in an increasingly expanding alliance, you increase the risk than an adversary will have to attack you out of necessity.
Why would a country feel threatened by a defensive alliance and want to attack another sovereign nation? It's not like NATO swayed new members to its side, they already were ideologically opposed to Russia.
>You can have joint training excercises ir exchanges without having to extend membership in a defensive alliance.
An alliance puts an obligation on the new member to adjust to alliance's standards.
>You can still send support without membership, if that is in your nation's interest.
Perception matters. Look how long it took for the West to start supporting Ukraine in earnest and think how much more value they could've gotten out of it if they had justification to ramp up support right away.

>>513564735
>>513565204
These fantasy scenarios are not how modern war works anyway.
>politics by other means
Even winning a war no longer is of paramount importance in practice - only for propaganda, and foreverwar is useful political.
Why would the politician care his countries population is wiped out and everything bombed to shit? His assets are offshore already, and he will never be targeted in a conflict, because kings do not kill kings. May also not be eligible for reelection. Ukraine is a decent enough example, maybe the current textbook example, of both proxy-war and suicide-by-politics.
Essentially entire nations have become disposable assets, if certain groups or nations profits off that.

>>513561660

Stop acting like bitches, and lying about this nightmare they have about Russia invading them. These people literally have to ignore the 2014 coup which proves NATO was behind the war from the start. They won't talk about it honestly. These are not good faith people

And then these people who know better go on tv, and social media and speak as though Russia just randomly started invading people. We cannot have people leading anything who are willing to lie to the population like that.

>>513555417 (OP)
There are several access points into Russia between the natural forming barriers of ocean, mountain ranges and deserts. Russia doesn't care about NATO on the border but it will not let NATO slip through these hot gates.

>>513565792
Who was couped in 2014?

>>513565329
Russia de-facto already destroyed all European armies and could do so again. We have nothing left.
90% of all Patriot systems in Europe are in Ukraine or were destroyed there, but either way there's not enough missiles to go around.

>>513555417 (OP)
Because the God-Emperor won't be there forever. Any crisis of leadership, and it's absolutely certain that some traitor candidate decides that it's better to secure the viceroy position by surrendering to NATO.

>>513565603
>Why would a country feel threatened by a defensive alliance
Remember when NATO was given a peacekeeping mandate for Libya and immediately dropped 30,000 bombs on them?

>>513565948
One look at Wikipedia tells me that Europe had at least 16 Patriot systems and at most 10 were sent to Ukraine. Why are you lying?

>>513565767
>FANTASY!
>starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.

RIGHT BECAUSE NONE OF THOSE COUNTRIES WERE ATTACKED BY NATO

>it was just a fantasy
>you dreamed it!

>>513555417 (OP)
Nukes don't explode without the tritium triggers you can't afford to maintain.

>>513565603
>Why would a country feel threatened by a defensive alliance
Because it isn't acting like a rational defensive alliance
>and want to attack another sovereign nation?
If that sovereign nation becomes an active belligerent against you in response to their treaty obligations, then you may have to attack them in self defense.
I.e. if Russia had attacked Ukraine as a NATO member, and then Polish and German military bases were providing direct military aid, those bases become targets.
>It's not like NATO swayed new members to its side, they already were ideologically opposed to Russia
They may have been ideologically opposed but that doesn't mean they were necessarily ready to embrace a full military alliance like NATO.
Again though, I'm not claiming the new members were forced or even coerced. But I do think Western powers heavily encouraged membership in some cases.
>Perception matters. Look how long it took for the West to start supporting Ukraine in earnest and think how much more value they could've gotten out of it if they had justification to ramp up support right away.
What do you mean by "more value"? The level of support they provided was enough for the Russians to get stuck in a quagmire and suffer heavy losses. No major NATO player is in danger.
What extra "value" would offset being directly involved in the conflict?

>>513566051
I think Putin was deeply affected by the KGB's failure to intervene in the dissolution of the USSR, but I don't know how deeply involved he was in the process at the time; everything was set up, only lacking the word of the chief, and they'd have couped Gorbachev.
>but that final order never came
Typical Communist indecision; can't do anything without higher orders!
Guess that gave him a bit of a paradox Stalin-trait, also the oligarch tard-wrangling.
Can't be a coincidence he has that name desu.
>Lenin
>Stalin
>Putin

>>513555417 (OP)
>Why is Russia worried about NATO being on their border?
Why is NATO worried about Russia on their border?

>>513566297
Right because classified info is all over wiki. Neither of you know for sure.

>>513555417 (OP)
>It's not like NATO would randomly just invade Russia
What happened in Kursk? Would the US allow another state to overthrow nations on it's border, position it's weapons closer and closer, encircle it militarily, put missile bases in countries it overthrew directly overlooking it's naval bases? Would it allow another country to move it's anti-ICBM systems closer and closer to that country, undermining it's nuclear defenses? Would it allow another country to use overthrown nations on it's border as a proxy against them? Fire nuclear capable missiles into the border of another country? Use proxies to attack ICBM warning radars and strategic bombers? These are all *major* acts of war.

No, the US instituted the Monroe Doctrine and declared the entire western hemisphere it's jurisdiction essentially. Shut your mouth you absolute fucking moron. This conflict has unequivocally proven NATO is a hostile, aggressive group that would have initiated nuclear armageddon if not for Russia's restraint.

>>513565767
So as a nation state operating in this environment, you cannot safely assume an alliance is purely "defensive" just because one or goverments say that it is.

>>513566297
Well I made the number up because I don't know exactly, just that it's a majority, certainly more than 10, but some systems also were produced in the meantime! Even if it's just half; what does putting half into one country leave for the 20 something other countries?
Also have to account for the fact that, after Russia, Ukraine had the largest air defense network in Europe, based mainly on S-300.
Do you understand what this means? No other European country can even get close to achieving the same density of AA Ukraine had in place, with its own massive arsenal plus anything the West was willing to give,
and this was barely sufficient to keep this one country somewhat safe.
In other words the AA capabilities in other parts of Europe currently are badly degraded and utterly insufficient.

>>513565948
>Russia de-facto already destroyed all European armies and could do so again.
Supplies may be dangerously low but no European army is destroyed.

>>513567061
>no European army is destroyed
No european army is worth a shit
You can have millions of shitskin migrants living off the state or an army
You cant have both

>>513556773
Russians don't belong to Europe

>>513566508
Oh, I don't meant it like that, or aimed at the USA's imperial ambitions, which of course are real and clear - if not exactly a cohesive doctrine or system; different parts of the swamp have different opinions and precise goals, but the overall agenda is similar, kinda like da joos.
Rather I meant that alliances, treaties and agreements aren't worth anything beyond a certain point, and are actively avoided anyway.
>let's write the most impotent, empty and irrelevant treaty ever!
>surely the cattle will relish this permanent Korea-style pissfire! Now gib voot.
Absolutely everything is at the mercy of the political elite club. There are no laws that count, or anything, in this realm; just the balance of power and tiny risk of cattle unrest.

>>513555612
>everyone should just drop what they are doing and serve us because we say so
russia will cease to exist as a nation even if they btfo nato. russia, like all "white" nations is dying

>>513567778
Ok
Am just saying NATOs main goal is to make sure Israel is stronger militarily than any other country in the middle east.

>>513567952
Not exactly their main goal, but it's a side-quest, yes.

>>513556773
No, it's the damn neighboring Belters that kept begging and voting NATO to keep going.
I should know, I voted too. Hopefully Russia truly dies before NATO finally gives up.

>>513563788
exactly, hence expect Ireland to join ODKB (Russian ex-USSR NATO equiv to which China and NK might join soon) as well as Mexico. With that comes hypersonic non-glided missiles installation of course to protect themselves from violent imperialist states of USA and UK.

>>513556773
the baltics joined NATO in 2004, did Russia get pissy about that? Also that doesn't change the fact that there's no incentive to attacking Russia unless ziggers project an image of never ending conflicts unless they are destroyed, Russia is literally manufacturing the only premise for their destruction and they cry about the insecurity NATO on their borders bring.

>>513565562
Why would nato risk nuclear war taking over Russia? If they're threatening nukes for providing weapons to their enemies, wouldn't they use them under threat of complete occupation?

>>513566756
And since when have nations provoked a larger opponent by giving their enemies ALL OF THEIR AMMO? You can't be this retarded either, despite being a mutt.

>>513569673
Because they know Russia doesn't want to start a nuclear war, duh.
>so you keep pushing and pushing
And then Putin cucks, or so they were thinking, at least, but as it turns out the red line was real this time.
Not like NATO didn't know this. They knew Ukraine would be devastated by this conflict.

Also consider this: a nuclear war has the potential to be less destructive than a conventional one!
Sounds crazy, but imagine avoiding an entire WW1-like scenario by dropping a couple of nukes on some habors or military bases. Even obliterating some cities may cause less overall damage and cost than fighting that shit out conventionally, in the modern day, in computerized total war.
There's also the matter of EMP; may be able to do such damage with a high altitude nuclear airburst that won't even injure anybody that the war ends before it begins.
Had Russia dropped a nuke on Kiyiv and they surrendered their casualties would have been less, and damage to Ukraine overall would have been less, than fighting for years and then predictably surrendering anyway.
Although I only provide these as some alternate viewpoints.

>>513569571
Exactly. NATOs best asset has been Russians themselves showing what war obsessed lunatics they are.
For the last decade Western EU had been warming up to Russia, buying most of the gas from them and letting it's military atrophy.
I honestly believe if Russia didn't start the "SMO", Trump's second term might have had put NATO into a terminal downward spiral.

>>513569845
To pretend there are not serious arms shortages in countries who supplied ukraine is beyond retarded.
Fuck off troon shill.

All I am saying is exact numbers are classified.

>>513570341
>EU had been warming up to Russia, buying most of the gas from them and letting it's military atrophy.

Right because when I buy something I cant live without I am doing "them" a favor.
You are a dumb cunt

>>513569571
>the baltics joined NATO in 2004, did Russia get pissy about that?
Yes, but they swallowed their pride with the goal of good relations with the West.
>turns out the West still wants to kill them
So they came to regret this mistake.
Putin was BFF with Bush until, wait a second, also applies to this guy:
>>513570341
It was Bush who intentionally sabotaged the relations between NATO (and in consequence Europe) and Russia over the ridiculous and meaningless Georgia conflict, because the prospect of an Eurasian Union of soome sort, Europe getting TOO friendly with Russia, would produce another world superpower and massively diminish the influence of the USA in Europe.
>NATO/the USA absolutely needed Russia as their bogeryman to maintain a grip on Europe
Which isn't even disputable from any angle. WTF exactly would be the point of NATO without Russia being le bad?

>>513570523
Yes, building up their own energy infrastructure around your pipelines and giving that kind of leverage is a huge favor and sign of a lot of (misplaced) trust, you stupid fucking mutt.

>>513570809
Because NATO needed the russian boogeyman to distract everyone while they destroyed every country in the middle east that was a threat to israeli supremacy

>>513571109
Where else where you going to get fuel from?
Retard

>>513570809
It is le bad, and if Bush did one thing right, he stopped Ziggers from forming another disastrous short-lived Muscovite empire that would kill more slavs than any outside force.

>>513555417 (OP)
Sounds like you have been listening to too much spin put out by Western media and grifters like Peter Ziehan.

They aren't worried about NATO on their borders. That's patent nonsense. But its simple enough for the modern day peasants to understand. So that's what they go with.
If instead they started talking about like control over natural resources, protection of economic interests, and maintaining political stability. Well fuck, that's is just miles above the heads of the dumb masses. See their eyes glaze over. Watch them post TLDR. Hear them say "lol wut bro?"
Everything today must be reduced to sentences less than 8 simple words, or else everyone scrolls past it.

>>513571299
Hmm, you might have a mild case of "everything is da joos" syndrome, but I'm not saying you are totally wrong either - it is connected. The timing is no coincidence, and there also was a sort of ongoing assault on Russia's remaining allies or satellite states, which continues in the modern day with Syria and Iran, or even India getting sanctiooooned, and whatever.
I honestly can't comprehend how these lying rat politicians aren't simply shot; the West has really gone through a remarkable, truly remarkable transformation.
Didn't we once stand for science and the truth - to a degree at least? For morals and human rights and whatnot?
Seems like we left this legacy far behind, further behind than Nazism, over these last 20 or so years.
>men are women Putin caused global warming

>>513571637
There's basically nothing wrong with it besides the things that are wrong with pretty much all of eastern europe,
and have you looked into a mirror lately? Repression and propaganda in the West, in some sectors, hasn't just surpassed Russia but China as well. Truly incredibly. Entirely incomprehensible.

>Russia annexes Belarus
>Russia annexes Ukraine
>Russia annexes the entire Caucasus
>Russia reees about all the extra NATO-countries it now shares borders with

>>513571692
I didnt used to blame Israel for events but recent events in Syria really disturbed me. Sèeing christians crucifued woke me up.

>>513572005
You forgot the Baltics, also Belarus already is Russia. There's literally no difference between them.
Ukraine they don't even want the entire thing. The neighboring countries can have back their historic areas in west Ukraine, and maybe there's a little landlocked hyhyl rump state of people literally nobody wants to become citizens in their country, that's fine.
Caucasus also is such a mixed bag, but it's important strategically. Also requires some sort of overseeing power, because otherwise there will be endless wars there, and historically Russia has been doing this anyway.
The assumption that Russia would have any interest in Polish or German territory is simply ridiculous. At worst (best) they'll simply install a proxy regime for you that isn't super fucking gay.

>>513571374
There are plenty of other countries selling carbohydrates and rest of the EU could have gone harder in Nuclear like France diversified, but that would have been a lot more expensive.
But you are dodging the actual argument - was going the cheaper route a favor to Russia? - yes it still was and it gave them a lot of leverage.

any non-slav still licking up rusnigger agitprop will be getting anally expanded before facing the wall, while facing the wall, and also while lying crumpled and nigger-fucked at the base of the wall. thanks you for your attention to this matter, unfuck yourself before i get there.

>>513572547
Probably shouldn't ignore the fact that Russia is a 2000% reliable supplier.
>they will keep their contract no matter what, if possible in any way, even if a meteroid exploded half of Siberia
This cannot be said for everybody. If NATO starts atomic war with Russia they will keep sending gas, as long as the infrastructure still works.

>>513572753
I'm not scared because odds are you'll 43% before then.

>>513572547
Nothing is cheaper than a pipeline
Moron.
Thats why GDP growth in the EU is 1% and Russia is 4%. India is 5% and China is 6%. Cheap russian oil and gas.

>>513555417 (OP)
Because Russia wants its own "sphere of influence", you know, to boss others around, while not offering anything back in return. If the country joins NATO, you basically seal it away from the Russian sphere, since you can't bully or beat up that country anymore into the submission.

>>513573166
>to boss others around
Telling them to not be trannies or super gay.
>while not offering anything back in return
They offer a lack of trannies and public faggotry.

>>513573166
Why didn't you leave their sphere immediately in 1991 like Poland and/or keep nukes?

You were retarded to trust them after knowing them for so long.

>>513555417 (OP)
are you unaware we've done it twice before?

>>513555417 (OP)
Why Russia is not allowed into NATO?

>>513572403
>Russia being interested in Poland and Germany is ridiculous
They talk shit about it all the time on Russian TV and something being retarded has never stopped power-hungry dictators from doing it. Stalin did not expect Hitler to invade the Soviet Union after they had split up eastern Europe between them both because "come on, he can't be THAT stupid", yet Hitler did and he made it all the way to the outskirts of Moscow, before a combo of overstretched supply-lines and generous military assistance courtesy of the USA beat him back.

Ukraine has made it crystal clear that it does not want to be part of Russia, yet Russia insists it will literally kill every last Ukrainian for the sake of the extra clay. You can't compare that shit with anything outside of badly written movie-villains.

>>513571853
NATO has yet to initiate a "special military strike operation" with causalities in the million on it's own side.
But I'm pretty sure you will try to spin the Russians tanks rolling in Ukraine primarily as NATOs doing.

>>513572894
Of course it is, I am not arguing that.
But it is possible to live in a much more reduced compacity from that source, as EU is now forced. And the blow would not have been as hard if so many eggs were not put in that one basket.

>>513573300
Can any Russians or Kazhaks or whatever help me out and tell me how Russia bosses them around?
>don't be a troon/gay in public
>don't be a literal enemy of the state
>no extreme racism or religious extremism plx
Uh, surely there's more? Maybe something unreasonable too?

>>513573794
>"come on, he can't be THAT stupid", yet Hitler did and he made it all the way to the outskirts of Moscow
You are not aware this is directly connected?
Despite all the forewarning, months in advance, Stalin didn't believe it. He didn't believe it when the reports came from the front either. This went on for like two weeks where the USSR was essentially leaderless and being overrun because Stalin, and only Stalin, intentionally ignored the dozens of generals and co who told him a German invasion was imminent or now ongoing.
Had Stalin not been such a complete retard the German invasion would have been blunted far quicker.

>>513555417 (OP)

In that case allow Russia and China to build up bases on your border.