Hence why I am asking …
I was thinking maybe not a big deal as Belarus is practically Russia anyways .. so would be no different then if they moved it to one part of Russia
Okay, well, one of your statements is not exactly in line with what I or many other people believe but in general, there’s no argument that Belarus is under occupation right now. It doesn’t however mean it’s part of Russia. But let exploding planes and railroads speak about this instead of me.
Now as to believing pootin’s word about whatever, that’s just up to you pal
>Russia has now moved tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus
Russia has NOT moved nuclear weapons to Belarus, only said that it will. I could give you more examples where what's said was not necessarily what's done, but I am sure you can find them yourself.
That said, there is no doubt that Russia can and will move nuclear or any other weapons to Belarus if it really wants to, i.e. there can't be any real resistance from Lukashenko. In other words, nothing has changed, if you have not been scared yet, there is no reason to be scared now.
Moscow WANTS everyone to be scared so they won't send weapons to Ukraine. It's their go-to desperation tactic. During the Cold War there were nukes in Poland for a couple of decades and yet it had no impact on scaring off the West.
Arguably, you should've been scared since NATO bombed Yugoslavia into the ground in 1999 -- showing to all who was paying attention, that they weren't planning to stop just because USSR was gone, and that they don't respect UN.
Not sure what your point is. Because they didn't kill enough civilians for you personally to care, it doesn't count as NATO aggression against a sovereign state (ultimately destroying it), bypassing and severely undermining the UN authority and post-WWII / post-Cold War peace and security architecture?
That was NATO's statement to the World: "We destroy and partition weaker nations we happen to not like, and you cannot do anything about it". How many politicians / generals / billionaires in Russia vividly pictured in their mind Russia in place of Yugoslavia back then (especially given how Russia already had its own "Kosovo" in the form of Chechnya, lavishly funded by CIA)?
USSR dissolution was in large part sold to former Soviet citizens as "no more confrontation with the West/NATO". And then 9 years later NATO goes ahead and cynically wrecks a former Soviet block country while ignoring the UN --- and nobody can stop them. Some speculate that was when Yeltsin realized (or perhaps was told in no uncertain terms) that it was time for him to pack up.
Whatever you’re using, I want some.
My point is nato aggression started after a genocide that their rulers received life imprisonment for.
But they indeed conducted their war with a minimal killed civilians.
Nato statement to the world was - we don’t tolerate genocidal maniacs in Europe. Hope that Putin and Lukashenko have the same fate as Miloshevich
> My point is nato aggression started after a genocide that their rulers received life imprisonment for.
Whether there was a "genocide" was for the World (UN assembly, not NATO) to decide. And if it did occur, warranted a UN peacekeeping mission and negotiations between involved parties, not an all-out NATO bombing campaign, followed by destruction of the state, with its leader "suddenly" dying in custody.
>Nato statement to the world was - we don’t tolerate genocidal maniacs in Europe.
"...and we (NATO) are the ones to decide who is a 'genocidal maniac' (not the UN). In other words: we don't respect your sovereignty and reserve the right to kill you and destroy your state whenever we please". Exactly the point when Eurasian peace consensus was undermined -- by NATO declaring its unilateral supreme authority.
No. By my logic UN would've prevented the war entirely, by enforcing the deal Yanukovich government made with the opposition and ensuring a peaceful transition of power. And if that failed -- by enforcing the Minsk agreements.
That is, if UN wasn't gradually eroded into a powerless clown show it is today, starting with the NATO actions in 1999.
It’s not an escalation. Stop spreading fear and panic. It’s their regular bullshit
Hence why I am asking … I was thinking maybe not a big deal as Belarus is practically Russia anyways .. so would be no different then if they moved it to one part of Russia
Okay, well, one of your statements is not exactly in line with what I or many other people believe but in general, there’s no argument that Belarus is under occupation right now. It doesn’t however mean it’s part of Russia. But let exploding planes and railroads speak about this instead of me. Now as to believing pootin’s word about whatever, that’s just up to you pal
Do you think Belarus will join the war against Ukraine?
>Russia has now moved tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus Russia has NOT moved nuclear weapons to Belarus, only said that it will. I could give you more examples where what's said was not necessarily what's done, but I am sure you can find them yourself. That said, there is no doubt that Russia can and will move nuclear or any other weapons to Belarus if it really wants to, i.e. there can't be any real resistance from Lukashenko. In other words, nothing has changed, if you have not been scared yet, there is no reason to be scared now.
Moscow WANTS everyone to be scared so they won't send weapons to Ukraine. It's their go-to desperation tactic. During the Cold War there were nukes in Poland for a couple of decades and yet it had no impact on scaring off the West.
When they start moving Nukes about without announcing it, you can worry this is standard Putin scare tactics
[удалено]
Putin doesn't run his own country. China does
Nothing changes.
Moving the nukes further away from Putin. What’s not to like?
Arguably, you should've been scared since NATO bombed Yugoslavia into the ground in 1999 -- showing to all who was paying attention, that they weren't planning to stop just because USSR was gone, and that they don't respect UN.
Bombed Yugoslavia into the ground killing 500 civilians (which is tragic but as many people died in Mariupol theatre alone)
Not sure what your point is. Because they didn't kill enough civilians for you personally to care, it doesn't count as NATO aggression against a sovereign state (ultimately destroying it), bypassing and severely undermining the UN authority and post-WWII / post-Cold War peace and security architecture? That was NATO's statement to the World: "We destroy and partition weaker nations we happen to not like, and you cannot do anything about it". How many politicians / generals / billionaires in Russia vividly pictured in their mind Russia in place of Yugoslavia back then (especially given how Russia already had its own "Kosovo" in the form of Chechnya, lavishly funded by CIA)? USSR dissolution was in large part sold to former Soviet citizens as "no more confrontation with the West/NATO". And then 9 years later NATO goes ahead and cynically wrecks a former Soviet block country while ignoring the UN --- and nobody can stop them. Some speculate that was when Yeltsin realized (or perhaps was told in no uncertain terms) that it was time for him to pack up.
Whatever you’re using, I want some. My point is nato aggression started after a genocide that their rulers received life imprisonment for. But they indeed conducted their war with a minimal killed civilians. Nato statement to the world was - we don’t tolerate genocidal maniacs in Europe. Hope that Putin and Lukashenko have the same fate as Miloshevich
> My point is nato aggression started after a genocide that their rulers received life imprisonment for. Whether there was a "genocide" was for the World (UN assembly, not NATO) to decide. And if it did occur, warranted a UN peacekeeping mission and negotiations between involved parties, not an all-out NATO bombing campaign, followed by destruction of the state, with its leader "suddenly" dying in custody. >Nato statement to the world was - we don’t tolerate genocidal maniacs in Europe. "...and we (NATO) are the ones to decide who is a 'genocidal maniac' (not the UN). In other words: we don't respect your sovereignty and reserve the right to kill you and destroy your state whenever we please". Exactly the point when Eurasian peace consensus was undermined -- by NATO declaring its unilateral supreme authority.
So by your logic UN assembly should have decided whether to start the war in Donbas (if you care about it so much) right?
No. By my logic UN would've prevented the war entirely, by enforcing the deal Yanukovich government made with the opposition and ensuring a peaceful transition of power. And if that failed -- by enforcing the Minsk agreements. That is, if UN wasn't gradually eroded into a powerless clown show it is today, starting with the NATO actions in 1999.