Is WWIII inevitable?

[tsupermario]

ukraine looking for alliance with NATO will renege the budaphest memorandum (nuclear free ukraine) because as a NATO member they can now host nuclear weapons from NATO

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tsikot Forums mobile app

Beyond the alliance’s three nuclear powers, five others participate in U.S. nuclear sharing: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
…

The United States and its NATO allies do not disclose exact figures for its European-deployed stockpiles. In 2021, it is estimated that there are 100 U.S.-owned nuclear weapons stored in five NATO member states across six bases: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel Air Base in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi Air Bases in Italy, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands, and Incirlik in Turkey.

Fact Sheet: U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

no latvia, estonia or lithuania but then ukraine?

placing nuclear weapons in ukraine is like putting them in poland:

Ambassador Mosbacher entered the fray, with a tweet suggesting that U.S. nuclear weapons could be relocated to and housed in Poland.

This is a truly bad idea.

First, moving U.S. nuclear weapons to Poland would be expensive. Relocation would require constructing special infrastructure, such as WS3 underground storage vaults, and other equipment to ensure their security. The vaults normally are located within specially hardened aircraft shelters. While not a budget-buster, U.S. and NATO militaries have far more pressing needs to shore up the alliance’s deterrence and defense posture.

Second, deploying the B61 bombs in Poland would make them more vulnerable to Russian preemptive attack in a crisis or conflict. Russia has deployed Iskandr-M ballistic missiles in Kaliningrad. With a range of up to 500 kilometers, these missiles could strike targets in almost all of Poland within a matter of minutes and with very little warning.

Buchel, by contrast, would have longer warning time of an attack, and aircraft flying from there at least begin their flights out of range of Russian air defenses. The two major Polish air bases — which host Polish F-16s that are not, in any case, nuclear capable — are located within range of Russian S400 anti-aircraft missiles deployed in Kaliningrad and their radars.

Third, placing nuclear weapons in Poland would be hugely provocative to Russia. This is not an argument against provoking Russia in general — given its provocative behavior, including a military build-up, bellicose rhetoric, and use of military force against Ukraine. (Indeed, I called in 2014 for Washington to provide lethal military assistance to Ukraine and for U.S. and NATO forces to deploy to the Baltic states, steps that Moscow deemed “provocative.”)

But there is provocative and there is provocative. Putting U.S. nuclear arms so close to Russia would be the latter. Recall the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviet Union placed nuclear weapons 90 miles from American shores. President John F. Kennedy imposed a naval blockade, which allowed time to work out a settlement with Moscow. In doing so, however, he set aside the recommendation of many of his advisers for air strikes and a full-scale invasion of Cuba.

Fourth, a U.S. proposal to relocate its nuclear weapons to Poland would prove very divisive within NATO. The members of the alliance stated in 1997 that “they have no intention, no plan, and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new [NATO] members.” They incorporated that into the “Founding Act” that established relations between NATO and Russia.

The security circumstances in Europe have changed dramatically and, unfortunately, for the worse over the past 23 years. Despite that, many NATO members still support the “three no’s” regarding nuclear weapons that the alliance adopted in 1997. A U.S. proposal to move the bombs to Poland would divide allies, cause some to question U.S. judgment, and prompt a broader nuclear debate within the alliance at a time when NATO should strive to show a firm and united stance toward Russia.

Relocating U.S. nuclear weapons to Poland would be expensive, militarily unwise because it would make the weapons more vulnerable to preemptive attack, unduly provocative, and divisive within NATO.

US nukes in Poland are a truly bad idea

[Egan101]

Pakistan PM on NATO’s ungratefulness

https://youtu.be/voFkiKj3nIs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tsupermario]

Paranoid talaga si Putin sa mga people power pro democracy movements, tulad nung nangyari sa Arab Springs. Syempre ang culprit dito mga Amerikano. So sa takot niya, imbis na idaan sa inpluwensya, sa dahas niya gagawin para mabawi mga "teritoryo" ng komunistang Russia.

Regime change through Western pro democracy "propaganda" is way better with totalitarian regimes with the constant threat of a global war to protect the dictator.

staving off domestic dissent

The Kremlin doubled down Thursday on recent statements by President Vladimir Putin that Russian society would benefit from what he called a "cleansing" of "scum and traitors" who align with the West in its criticism of the war in Ukraine.

The reference evoked terrifying memories of the mass arrests of the Stalin era — when repressions were justified for "cleansing" Soviet society of traitors — and it followed new laws criminalizing criticism of what the Kremlin calls its "special military operation" in Ukraine.

Russia has seen an exodus of political activists, journalists, celebrities and entrepreneurs critical of the war or fearing its consequences.

In comments on Wednesday, Putin lashed out at Russians who — the Kremlin leader argued — were "mentally" aligned with the West amid the Ukraine crisis. Putin said their true aim is to work with "the collective West" to destroy Russia from within.

Putin's warning to anti-war Russians evokes Stalinist purges

For Russians against Ukraine war, Putin has a cruel warning : NPR

[uls]

Talagang papunta sa gulo at gera ulit ang mundo natin dahil sa mga ogag na mga pinuno tulad ni Putin.

Ganyan naman palagi nangyayari kapag meron isang pinuno na sobrang bilib sa kanyang sarili, na dinadaan niya sa lakas at gulo para makuha ang gusto niya.

Eto peyborit ni Putin, mga conspiracy theories para ma justify niya ang gera.

Yan din naman ang mali ng US nung sinakop nila ang Iraq.

Kung ako tatanungin, mas ok na matanggal ang mga lider na totalitarian at DICKtador. Ang totalitarianism ay madalas naaabuso, madalas pinagmumulan ng World War.

Paranoid talaga si Putin sa mga people power pro democracy movements, tulad nung nangyari sa Arab Springs. Syempre ang culprit dito mga Amerikano. So sa takot niya, imbis na idaan sa inpluwensya, sa dahas niya gagawin para mabawi mga "teritoryo" ng komunistang Russia.

Regime change through Western pro democracy "propaganda" is way better with totalitarian regimes with the constant threat of a global war to protect the dictator.

i prefer a mutipolar world than a unipolar world

ayaw ko nag iisa lang ang siga sa buong mundo

[kisshmet]

Counter offensive by waging a brutal war is so so wrong. Ukraine has the right to protect its democracy, every country that doesn't want to be part of mythical Russian empire.

This is going to be a long war at Ukraine while Putin is alive. Yung bayag nya nakataya na, wala nang atrasan ito. Kung hindi niya makuha yung gusto niya, mag escalate pa siya. Chemical weapons na ang next niyang gagamitin dyan. Tingin ko mas lalala pa ang situation.

if putin will not act to counter NATOs expansion towards the east now russian western borders will end up nuclearized unlike before the 90s where theres a nuclear free zones between russia and NATO

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tsikot Forums mobile app

[kisshmet]

Fact Sheet: U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

no latvia, estonia or lithuania but then ukraine?

placing nuclear weapons in ukraine is like putting them in poland:



US nukes in Poland are a truly bad idea

thats why belarus just turned nuclear from non-nuclear and will now host russian nukes aimed at the destruction of warsaw and NATO

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tsikot Forums mobile app

[kisshmet]

Eto peyborit ni Putin, mga conspiracy theories para ma justify niya ang gera.

Yan din naman ang mali ng US nung sinakop nila ang Iraq.

Kung ako tatanungin, mas ok na matanggal ang mga lider na totalitarian at DICKtador. Ang totalitarianism ay madalas naaabuso, madalas pinagmumulan ng World War.

Paranoid talaga si Putin sa mga people power pro democracy movements, tulad nung nangyari sa Arab Springs. Syempre ang culprit dito mga Amerikano. So sa takot niya, imbis na idaan sa inpluwensya, sa dahas niya gagawin para mabawi mga "teritoryo" ng komunistang Russia.

Regime change through Western pro democracy "propaganda" is way better with totalitarian regimes with the constant threat of a global war to protect the dictator.

ukraine should have prioritized accession to EU as an economic bloc rather than NATO which is a nuclear military bloc

that way they could have preserved their sincerity for PEACE by sticking with the budhapest memorandum a NON-NUCLEAR ukraine

after the maidan revolt of 2014 they exposed their intent to NUCLEARIZE thru NATO or their own ability to develop nuclear weapons which is totally different from the intent of the budaphest memorandum

now why should russia wait for the ukrainians to break their promise never to nuclearize and get the DETERENCE of a treaty with NATO?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tsikot Forums mobile app

[tsupermario]

ukraine should have prioritized accession to EU as an economic bloc rather than NATO which is a nuclear military bloc

that way they could have preserved their sincerity for PEACE by sticking with the budhapest memorandum a NON-NUCLEAR ukraine

after the maidan revolt of 2014 they exposed their intent to NUCLEARIZE thru NATO or their own ability to develop nuclear weapons which is totally different from the intent of the budaphest memorandum

now why should russia wait for the ukrainians to break their promise never to nuclearize and get the DETERENCE of a treaty with NATO?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tsikot Forums mobile app

december 5, 1994 - the budapest memorandum was signed where ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal after US, UK and Russia guaranteed its independence and security

november 2013 - euromaidan revolution happened when ukraine president chose closer ties with russia over EU political and trade agreement that was already approved by parliament

feb and march 2014 - russia annexed crimea, a part of ukraine

march 2014 - pro russian separatists took over donetsk and luhansk of eastern ukraine igniting war between ukraine government and the separatists

sep 2014, feb 2015 - minsk agreements, brokered with participation of france and germany, were signed in efforts to stop the fighting

feb 2022 - russia recognized donetsk and luhansk as separate republics, declaring the minsk agreements as failures, and invaded ukraine

[tsupermario]

On Thursday afternoon, President Vladimir Putin rang the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and told him what Russia's precise demands were for a peace deal with Ukraine.
…

The Russian demands fall into two categories.
The first four demands are, according to Mr Kalin, not too difficult for Ukraine to meet.

Chief among them is an acceptance by Ukraine that it should be neutral and should not apply to join Nato. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has already conceded this.

There are other demands in this category which mostly seem to be face-saving elements for the Russian side.

Ukraine would have to undergo a disarmament process to ensure it wasn't a threat to Russia. There would have to be protection for the Russian language in Ukraine. And there is something called de-Nazification.

This is deeply offensive to Mr Zelensky, who is himself Jewish and some of whose relatives died in the Holocaust, but the Turkish side believes it will be easy enough for Mr Zelensky to accept. Perhaps it will be enough for Ukraine to condemn all forms of neo-Nazism and promise to clamp down on them.

The second category is where the difficulty will lie, and in his phone call, Mr Putin said that it would need face-to-face negotiations between him and President Zelensky before agreement could be reached on these points. Mr Zelensky has already said he's prepared to meet the Russian president and negotiate with him one-to-one.

Mr Kalin was much less specific about these issues, saying simply that they involved the status of Donbas, in eastern Ukraine, parts of which have already broken away from Ukraine and stressed their Russianness, and the status of Crimea.

Although Mr Kalin didn't go into detail, the assumption is that Russia will demand that the Ukrainian government should give up territory in eastern Ukraine. That will be deeply contentious.

The other assumption is that Russia will demand that Ukraine should formally accept that Crimea, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014, does indeed now belong to Russia. If this is the case, it will be a bitter pill for Ukraine to swallow.

Nevertheless, it is a fait accompli, even though Russia has no legal right to own Crimea and actually signed an international treaty, after the fall of Communism but before Vladimir Putin came to power, accepting that Crimea was part of Ukraine.

Still, President Putin's demands are not as harsh as some people feared and they scarcely seem to be worth all the violence, bloodshed and destruction which Russia has visited on Ukraine.

Given his heavy-handed control over the Russian media, it shouldn't be too hard for him and his acolytes to present all this as a major victory.
For Ukraine, though, there are going to be serious anxieties.

If the fine details of any agreement aren't sorted out with immense care, President Putin or his successors could always use them as an excuse to invade Ukraine again.

Ukraine conflict: Putin lays out his demands in Turkish phone call - BBC News

a new berlin wall?

[Athrunzala]

Absolute Proof That All Fake News Is SCRIPTED!!!



"This is extremely dangerous to our democracy" lol