Should the World surge Russia.

Hawkeye10 said:
Phoenyx said:
A very good video. My only serious disagreement is with Col. Doug Macgregor's assessment of depleted uranium or DU for short. He thinks that it's essentially benign after its military use, and that Russia is probably only voicing concerns of the UK's sending of it to Ukraine for propaganda purposes, when the truth is the U.S. itself vowed to stop using it in 2015. There's solid evidence that they broke their word and continued using it in the war in Syria, but I believe the reason they at least paid lip service to the idea that they weren't going to use it anymore is because its toxic and even lethal effects on humans are now too well known to ignore. The Harvard International Review published a good article on DU back in September 2021. Quoting from it:

**
In the past, leaders did not pay the necessary amount of attention to the risks of depleted uranium. Documents suggest that the United States may have known about the potential consequences of depleted uranium during conflicts in which it was used. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published a 1991 report indicating that deploying depleted uranium in the Gulf War could have caused 500,000 cancer deaths.

However, the United States still used depleted uranium in the Middle East despite the risks, deeming that its military benefits outweighed the potential civilian impact. This calculus reflects a common trend in which western countries justify human rights abuses under the guise of “national interest” or military necessity. The United States and Great Britain might have used a less toxic substance like tungsten instead of depleted uranium. Still, military leaders selected depleted uranium, perpetuating a long-history of imperialism in which western nations prioritize their own interests over the well-being of local communities.

Importantly, depleted uranium did not go unchallenged. In the 1990s, environmental activists and other groups criticized the use of depleted uranium, but the United States continued to deploy it. In 2015, the United States Department of Defense declared that it would no longer use depleted uranium, only to use it for airstrikes in Syria later that year.

But how is this possible? In light of evidence suggesting the dangers of depleted uranium, why were countries still allowed to use it? One might think that international treaties like the Chemical Weapons Convention should have prohibited its deployment. However, further investigation will reveal the opposite. Many of these treaties only ban weapons that have primarily toxic effects or are specifically intended to have toxic effects. This is not the case for depleted uranium. Militaries use depleted uranium to make or destroy armor rather than spread toxic chemicals to enemy combatants. For this reason, such treaties have not prevented countries from using depleted uranium in military operations.

However, the absence of a treaty banning depleted uranium is not the only reason that countries like the United States have been able to justify its use. We might also look to the lack of robust research on its health consequences in former conflict zones.
**

Source:
Depleted Uranium, Devastated Health: Military Operations and Environmental Injustice in the Middle East | Harvard International Review
Click to expand...

I also believe that he is pretty spot on and I point out that he pretty much flat out said that he does not understand why the Russians are talking about depleted uranium.
Click to expand...

I think he might benefit from reading the article I quoted above :-).

Hawkeye10 said:
Hopefully you also saw this:

Click to expand...

I hadn't, but I just saw it now, again, another great video. I've been following Scott Ritter's work on the Ukraine war for some time now as I think he's really got extensive knowledge on the both the situation over there and the factors that keep it going.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Click to expand...

Another great video. I've also been following John Mearsheimer's work on the Ukraine crisis for some time now as well, as I think he's generally spot on, especially when it comes to who bears responsibility for the conflict.
 
anonymoose said:
Why is that?
Without NATO there’s no doubt Russia would try to re-establish the Soviet Union and basically re-colonize Eastern Europe. None of those sovereign countries want that. In fact they’re the ones that have the most hatred for Russian aggression and imperialism.
Click to expand...

Actually, without NATO Europe, at this point, would have to defend itself not rely on the US to do it for them. NATO made sense in a binary world where there were two super powers, the US and the Soviet Union. That world no longer exists. Today there are still two super powers, the US and China, with Russia or India as a potential third that would side with one or the other of the two. NATO in that scenario is obsolete and outdated. It needs to be dissolved.

Ukraine is a sideshow in all of this. You have two quasi despots going at each other. It doesn't matter one iota which one wins because both lose in terms of economics. That the US is idiotically propping one dictator-wantabe is a fool's errand.

199qs4v9qw2b2png.png
 
Last edited:
Phoenyx said:
Another great video. I've also been following John Mearsheimer's work on the Ukraine crisis for some time now as well, as I think he's generally spot on, especially when it comes to who bears responsibility for the conflict.
Click to expand...

I am pretty scared that the analysis is correct that the permanent war elites are now actively lobbying for a direct war with Russia/china/Iran at the same time.....which is obviously pure insanity. It would be insanity if we still had the military we used to have, but we dont, it has been destroyed win incompetence, corruption, and social engineering....we will get our asses kicked....and rapidly. My wife and I argue about whether or not it would take more than a week to lose that war.
 
ExpressLane said:
If we slowly dole out arms to Ukraine it will lead to a slow drawn out war that will cost lives on both sides. The world should supply Ukraine with as many advanced weapons as fast as we can so it will outstrip Russia's ability to replace weapons. Reagan defeated the Soviet Union by outstripping the Soviets economy's ability to compete with the US economy. Right now Russia is having a problem supplying its army. We need to pick up the pace that we supply Ukraine so they can push Russia back to its borders.
Click to expand...

Then we need to make sure Trump or DeSantis is not president?!!
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Phoenyx said:
Another great video. I've also been following John Mearsheimer's work on the Ukraine crisis for some time now as well, as I think he's generally spot on, especially when it comes to who bears responsibility for the conflict.
Click to expand...

I am pretty scared that the analysis is correct that the permanent war elites are now actively lobbying for a direct war with Russia/china/Iran at the same time.....which is obviously pure insanity. It would be insanity if we still had the military we used to have, but we dont, it has been destroyed win incompetence, corruption, and social engineering....we will get our asses kicked....and rapidly. My wife and I argue about whether or not it would take more than a week to lose that war.
Click to expand...

In terms of Russia, the U.S. has the benefit of generally being pretty far removed from it, other than the contact point in Alaska. But it faces Siberia, which is not exactly Russia's most important region. If things get serious with Russia, I imagine the top threat will be nukes. I can't remember which of the videos mentioned nukes as a threat. I do remember the speaker saying that it's unlikely that it'd come to that, but considering the stakes, the fact that it's unlikely shouldn't make us cavalier about the possibility, and I think we can agree that the longer this war is drawn out, the more likely this possibility becomes. Which is why I think we can both agree that the sooner the U.S. strongly encourages Ukraine to find a compromise with Russia, the better.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Actually, without NATO Europe, at this point, would have to defend itself not rely on the US to do it for them. NATO made sense in a binary world where there were two super powers, the US and the Soviet Union. That world no longer exists. Today there are still two super powers, the US and China, with Russia or India as a potential third that would side with one or the other of the two. NATO in that scenario is obsolete and outdated. It needs to be dissolved.

Ukraine is a sideshow in all of this. You have two quasi despots going at each other. It doesn't matter one iota which one wins because both lose in terms of economics. That the US is idiotically propping one dictator-wantabe is a fool's errand.

199qs4v9qw2b2png.png
Click to expand...

If only all nations would increase their spending on diplomacy, I think we'd have avoided this entire war in Ukraine -.-
 
Phoenyx said:
In terms of Russia, the U.S. has the benefit of generally being pretty far removed from it, other than the contact point in Alaska. But it faces Siberia, which is not exactly Russia's most important region. If things get serious with Russia, I imagine the top threat will be nukes. I can't remember which of the videos mentioned nukes as a threat. I do remember the speaker saying that it's unlikely that it'd come to that, but considering the stakes, the fact that it's unlikely shouldn't make us cavalier about the possibility, and I think we can agree that the longer this war is drawn out, the more likely this possibility becomes. Which is why I think we can both agree that the sooner the U.S. strongly encourages Ukraine to find a compromise with Russia, the better.
Click to expand...

The chances that we would be in a hot war with Russia alone approach zero. The Chinese would consider going to war to finish off the West a failure as they intend to take us down by other means, but they will not let the Russians go it alone. The Chinese and the Russians are now fused at the hip, this is The New Chinese Empire.
 
Phoenyx said:
If only all nations would increase their spending on diplomacy, I think we'd have avoided this entire war in Ukraine -.-
Click to expand...

War is just politics by other means. Diplomacy only goes so far, and when you are like the UN, toothless and penniless, diplomacy doesn't work at all.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
War is just politics by other means. Diplomacy only goes so far, and when you are like the UN, toothless and penniless, diplomacy doesn't work at all.
Click to expand...

It looks like the UN is to be the central command structure of the New World Order...you are out of date.
 
ExpressLane said:
Yes they did no one has ever beat Afghanistan. At least the US beat them back. Our big problem was our supply chain was very long. Russia was next door and never dominated the country as much as the US did.
Click to expand...

You care about the wrong things, this will not work out for you, you fail to understand what is important.
 
moon said:
The supporters of the war are fools. Russia cannot lose. If the Russians were in any danger of losing they would use nukes.
So would any nuclear-armed country.
NATO is a stupid concept.
Click to expand...

There is no chance the Russians will use nuclear weapons.

Ukraine is NOT part of NATO. We demanded Ukraine disarm in 1994. In exchange for disarming, we vowed to provide support should Russia invade.

I opposed this when Clinton did it, BUT it was done. We are obligated to support Ukraine. We are NOT obligated to go to war on their behalf, but we are obligated to provide material support.

https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu...22_ukraine-the_budapest_memo.pdf?m=1645824948
 
Cypress said:
Trump had to be cajoled and talked into providing lethal military aid to Ukraine, according to his very own national security advisor. Trump wasn't keen to do it, and his staff had to tell him it would be good business for American defense contractors.

Biden was providing lethal military aid to Ukraine months before Putin invaded
Click to expand...

Your claim is simply not true.

As is the case of most fascist democrats - you just make shit up and post it as if it were true.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
There is no chance the Russians will use nuclear weapons.

Ukraine is NOT part of NATO. We demanded Ukraine disarm in 1994. In exchange for disarming, we vowed to provide support should Russia invade.

I opposed this when Clinton did it, BUT it was done. We are obligated to support Ukraine. We are NOT obligated to go to war on their behalf, but we are obligated to provide material support.

https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu...22_ukraine-the_budapest_memo.pdf?m=1645824948
Click to expand...

There is a very small chance that the Empire will use nukes, one reason being that would run counter to their brand, but they might.... the chances are not zero.
 
moon said:
NATO is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As is now evidenced- NATO promotes war by expansion.
Click to expand...

Which NATO country has expanded it's borders since the formation of the alliance?

Be specific.

Russia, you may or may not recall, was developing a solid commercial relationship with Europe - before the US, via NATO, moved to dismantle it.
Click to expand...

Russian propaganda has NOT improved since the days of the USSR.

That was pathetic.
 
The Russians and the Han have always been willing to spend lives cheaper than the dying West has in a very long time. This is a fact that should not be forgotten when analyzing the chances that they go nuclear.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
There is a very small chance that the Empire will use nukes, one reason being that would run counter to their brand, but they might.... the chances are not zero.
Click to expand...

If Russia used Nuclear weapons in Ukraine, Britain and France would reduce them to ashes in minutes - forget the USA.

I have questioned before, and continue to, if the Soviet stockpiles in Russia even functions. The Russians are just as likely to destroy themselves with dilapidated weapons than they are to destroy the Ukraine. We saw the shape their tanks were in - there is no chance their nukes are in any better shape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top