Time is on the side of the Russians in Ukraine and the Chinese on pretty much anything else when it comes to confronting the US empire.

But ever since the ceasefire in Lebanon and the fall of Assad I can’t help but feel that the Palestinian cause is getting worse every day. No one is lifting a finger for them except the Yemenis and it only seems that the Zionist fucks are getting closer to their objectives.

Civil war in “Israel” when? True Promise 3 when (lol)?

It doesn’t help that some of the loudest voices cheering for Assad’s fall where Palestinians and that sectarism is strong against Shia’s…

  • turtle [he/him]@lemm.eeEnglish
    1·
    29 days ago

    From NATO’s own mouth:

    In fact, the Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

    Despite their claims that NATO had/has any purposes other than as a Soviet deterrent, that was its main purpose and as such it should have been dissolved or fundamentally restructured after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But no, it continued on and now its main role continues to be as an anti-Russia alliance.

    Fact Sheet: U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe - maybe the nuclear missiles aren’t pointed at Russia and ready to be launched at the press of a button, but do you think that the US keeps over 100 nuclear weapons (by 2021) in 5 European countries for anything other than to use it against Russia at short notice?

    It seems that you just can’t see things from Russia’s perspective. I ask again, how would the US react if Mexico had Russian-controlled nuclear weapons based there and Canada started moving to join the same “defensive” alliance? This is not whataboutism, but to illustrate that NATO is understandably seen by Russia as a major threat to their national security. Does their perspective not matter?

      • turtle [he/him]@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        28 days ago

        Yes, I’ve mentioned multiple times in this thread including in the discussion with you that the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. NATO should’ve rightfully been dissolved a short time after that.

        You keep moving around and not addressing my questions. Let me simplify it: would you feel threatened by an adversarial nation from a different continent across an ocean placing a bunch of nuclear weapons in a country neighboring yours? Yes or no?

          • turtle [he/him]@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            28 days ago

            The first and primary reason for NATO existing: “deterring Soviet expansionism”. Distance makes a lot of difference. 30 minutes for a missile from the US to reach Russia. 2-3 minutes for one from Europe to reach them. That’s enough of a difference for people to get into bunkers or not. You are being disingenuous in not admitting that bringing nuclear weapons across an ocean and placing them next door will be perceived as very threatening, regardless of whatever explanations are given. Think about how asymmetric that power is too. The US reaches Russia in 2-3 minutes with their nuclear weapons, while it would take Russia 30 minutes to do the same. It means Russia would effectively be largely wiped out before they would have a chance to return fire to the US.

            Since you’re just not willing to admit that such “defensive” moves can feel very threatening to another country despite evidence and logic, there’s no point in discussing further.

              • turtle [he/him]@lemm.eeEnglish
                1·
                28 days ago

                I haven’t mentioned a submarine in any of my posts. You’re the one who brought them up. I’m not concerned about the scenario that I described because the country I live in doesn’t have nuclear weapons from a distant foe nearby. We were discussing why Russia would legitimately feel that these things were a serious national security threat, but I see you’re intent on sealioning. I’ve had enough of it, so I will not be responding further.

                Edit: on second thought, I’ve blocked you since you’re not willing to have an honest discussion.

                Edit 2: unblocked you because I decided my threshold for blocking someone is higher than this. I just won’t discuss politics with you in the future.

                  • freagle@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
                    1·
                    10 days ago

                    You don’t understand MAD. MAD is what keeps nuclear war from happening. The USA consistently has a position that they must work to establish the capabilities to WIN a nuclear war, and one of the key tenets of that is undermining MAD.

                    The way to undermine MAD is two-fold:

                    1. Establish nuclear first-strike capabilities. This means faster nukes, closer to their targets, at high volume. Submarines certainly meet the first two criteria but not the the third. The speed and distance matters because it shortens decision making time for the target. The volume matters because you need to overwhelm their defences and you need to target their nuclear weapons to prevent retaliation.
                    2. Missile defense. After you’ve destroyed most of their nukes in a first-strike, your missile defense needs to be robust enough to intercept whatever systems you failed to destroy. This means oceanic and land-based anti-missile batteries surrounding your target to intercept as many flight paths as possible.

                    So while you are correct that people won’t really survive a nuclear war, it’s the USA that believes they can win and they have been hard at work for decades to create the conditions for them to do so. They believe that even if a couple nukes make it through to the US, that would probably still be a victory for them. They believe they can wipe entire countries off the face of the earth in exchange for losing a city or two. That’s the USA.

                    The USA constantly reminds everyone that they reserve the right to strike first with nukes. It’s part of their military doctrine. So every other nation has a responsibility to their own people and in fact to their neighboring countries to prevent the US from furthering it’s development of both forward missile deployments and forward missile defense systems. Both of those things make it more and more likely that the USA will launch a nuclear first-strike under their stated doctrine because they will have achieved or believed they have achieved an asymetry that undermines MAD. Every nuclear nation, and every nation that is under the aegis of one of those nations, is responsible for ensuring MAD remains the game state.

                  • turtle [he/him]@lemm.eeEnglish
                    1·
                    27 days ago

                    You’re just not willing to accept that I may even possibly have valid points and are now laughing and accusing me of dishonesty. That’s enough. Like I said in my last post, I no longer wish to discuss this with you.