- Location
- Limousin
It's an interesting one. You would expect Algeria to be neutral in this sort of matter, one can only assume Putin is leaning on them or they see backing Russia as a way of maintaining a high gas price to the EU.Algeria!
It's an interesting one. You would expect Algeria to be neutral in this sort of matter, one can only assume Putin is leaning on them or they see backing Russia as a way of maintaining a high gas price to the EU.Algeria!
Which Nuclear weapons are these?Because its OK for the West to put nukes in Ukraine, but Russia can't put them in Cuba.
Have you watched the video?
I note you have no rebuttal to my post, because there isn't one..Because its OK for the West to put nukes in Ukraine, but Russia can't put them in Cuba.
Have you watched the video?
Which chemical attack are you quoting and what so called independent inquiry?Then there was the chemical attack in Syria in 2017, no I'm wrong the independent inquiry proved that was the CIA.
If you look back I agree with your reply.I note you have no rebuttal to my post, because there isn't one..
As for Meirsheimer, he has an agenda and a conclusion that he decided to reach before assessing the facts. He therefore shapes his video to reach the conclusion. And he ignores Ukrainian sovereignty, as do you... Take a few minutes and deconstruct what he says, then note how he attempts progressive reasoning toward a predetermined conclusion. It's a very old technique, and easily recognised when you know about it.
I could post videos by Putin apologists too, there are loads on the net. None of them would be rational, democratic or right. So now I'm wondering why you have...
But the Ukraine is not in NATO. And with the exception of going into Kosovo to protect UN safe zones NATO has not attacked any country as it is a purely defensive organisation of sovereign states. The same unfortunately cannot be said for Russia, which as been in conflict with most of its neighbouring countries since the fall of the Soviet Union, sometimes justified often not.Correct I apologise and withdraw that remark.
I will replace it with if one NATO Country is attacked all other NATO Countries will defend it.
That's the threat Russia sees.
I know what you will say I'm editing.
How close was Ukraine to joining NATO?If you look back I agree with your reply.
My reply then raises the question as NATO is a defensive organisation Russia has nothing to fear. Which I can only answer with when he is surrounded and outnumbered he feels threatened.
As for the deconstruction of his argument I'm genuinely asking what has he said that's not fact?
Russia would recognise Ukraine as a Neutral State.
Because its OK for the West to put nukes in Ukraine, but Russia can't put them in Cuba.
Have you watched the video?
April 2008 Bucharest NATO summit Ukraine and Georgia were promised membership.How close was Ukraine to joining NATO?
How do you know Russia would recognise Ukraine as a neutral state?
In the light of recent events would you trust Russia to honour
So if the west wasn’t going to allow them to join why did Russia use NATO as an excuse to invade ?I don't think the West had any intention of allowing them to join.
Why are we only sending military equipment, if the threat of Russian expansion is real we should be on Russias border.
But how close were they to joining ?Sorry, I've edited my post
To explain my edit. Ukraine and Georgia were promised NATO membership in 2008So if the west wasn’t going to allow them to join why did Russia use NATO as an excuse to invade ?
No, they have not, you are correct, but if they joined NATO they could or even conventional weapons would pose a threat in Russia's mind.But the West haven’t put nukes in Ukraine, and neither have they invited Ukraine to join NATO, or accepted their applications to join.
Two things, "Monthly Review" is a magazine that promotes Marxist ideology and the original source. "Covert Action Magazine" was originally financed and set up by the KGB. Having taken those factors in mind, the actual accusation that CIA funded terrorists could have been behind this particular atrocity could still have an element of truth about it knowing how the CIA operate. But it's also more likely that Syrian or Russian operatives were responsible, as they had the most to gain.My apologies once again. I've taken your advice and deconstructed it. It was not an inquiry but a report. Briefly it claims the attack by the Syrian Government's airforce was proven to be a land based missile and no evidence of Sarin gas was found. (I said chemical).
I will agree it's not a very good example to save you time. If you do wish to read it.
Prestigious weaponry expert censored after demonstrating that a deadly poison gas attack—blamed on the Syrian government—was really a false-flag operation by U.S.-funded terrorists | MR Online
Theodore Postol, a physicist with a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering, he is Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and International Security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and a former top policy adviser to the chief of naval operations.mronline.org