12
Comments (43)
sorted by:
17
AntonioOfVenice 17 points ago +17 / -0

Let's not pretend that anything this joker says or does is 'news'. All he does is engage in publicity stunts. NATO knows full well that by accepting Ukraine, it would be nuked into smithereens, which would mean that the corrupt political leaders would have no one left to exploit. A nightmare scenario.

8
ArtemisFoul 8 points ago +8 / -0

NATO can't accept an applicant country that is at war or has any unresolved border disputes, so this is nothing but a pointless gesture to make clueless retards either clap like seals or seethe.

9
current_horror 9 points ago +9 / -0

And Switzerland was famously neutral until it wasn’t.

There are no rules.

5
AntonioOfVenice 5 points ago +5 / -0

NATO 'can' do anything it wants, of course, because there's no judicial body to invalidate it if they do admit a member with unresolved border disputes. That said, they are smart enough (and 'not crazy' enough) to abide by that.

5
CatoTheElder 5 points ago +5 / -0

That is assuming Biden's handlers don't want the war. That assumption is invalid. Every time there is massive inflation, the powers that be drag the US into a war to hide it.

2
dekachin 2 points ago +3 / -1

NATO can't accept an applicant country that is at war or has any unresolved border disputes

NATO can accept any country as long as it has consent of the current members. There are no rules or criteria other than that. As long as all the countries agree, anyone can join at any time:

This is a common misconception that has its roots in the 1995 Study on NATO Enlargement carried out by the Alliance. A closer reading of this document shows that a territorial dispute does not necessarily prevent a country from joining the Alliance. Here is what the study says on the matter:

“States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.” NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), “Study on NATO Enlargement,” last updated November 5, 2008

1
spambot 1 point ago +1 / -0

...i wonder if that same exact reasoning will be used as an excuse to bolser nato's "self defense" ablitys perhaps with nukes being on the table with M.A.D being used as the reasoning.

-1
dekachin -1 points ago +4 / -5

NATO knows full well that by accepting Ukraine, it would be nuked into smithereens

No it does not, because that would not happen, but it sounds like something a North Korean official would tweet out. Gotta earn your rubles today I guess lol.

4
AntonioOfVenice 4 points ago +5 / -1

Gotta earn your rubles today I guess lol.

Man, contrary to your protestations, you must be really panicking about Russian mobilization if you're going full-blown crazy this often.

-3
dekachin -3 points ago +2 / -5

I'm not the crazy one having wild fantasies of a nuclear holocaust over russia getting bitch-slapped around in Ukraine just like it got bitch slapped out of Afghanistan in the 80s.

4
AntonioOfVenice 4 points ago +6 / -2

You mean when it withdrew in quite an orderly manner and the government it installed lasted for another 3 years, whereas your clown country hadn't even left when the government it had installed collapsed like a house of cards, you left your own subjects behind, your marines were blown up, and you avenged them by blowing up the kids of one of your allies?

This is not even taking into account that they stayed 10 years, you stayed 20 years. Their enemies had the support of a major world power , yours did not (Or do you also buy into wild CIA conspiracy theories about Russian bounties?)

Objectively, the Russians did a better job.

-2
dekachin -2 points ago +1 / -3

Objectively, the Russians did a better job.

You're trolling.

The US sat on the Taliban for 20 years and was never defeated. We only left because Biden wanted to, not because we were losing. In fact, we were holding the Taliban down with only a handful of troops by 2020.

US total combat deaths in 20 years: 1,932

Soviet total deaths in under 10 years: about 15,000

Also it led to the fall of the Soviet Union since it discredited the USSR as a military power.

4
AntonioOfVenice 4 points ago +4 / -0

The US sat on the Taliban for 20 years and was never defeated

Now you are trolling. When was the USSR ever "defeated"?

We only left because Biden wanted to, not because we were losing.

The USSR left because Gorbachev wanted to.

Also it led to the fall of the Soviet Union since it discredited the USSR as a military power.

Either you are ignorant, or you don't believe that.

Also nice job ignoring that your government fell in minus 3 weeks, while theirs lasted 3 years.

1
redman012 1 point ago +1 / -0

Who is “his government”?

-1
dekachin -1 points ago +1 / -2

Now you are trolling. When was the USSR ever "defeated"?

You're going to make me fire up wikipedia now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Khost

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maravar_Pass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaji

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arghandab_(1987)

Even at its peak, while the USSR Russians were certainly far more capable than the Russians of today, they were still a second-tier force far less efficient and effective than western forces.

The USSR left because Gorbachev wanted to.

Yes, but Gorbachev didn't want to out of idiotic ideology like Biden, Gorbachev wanted out because Afghanistan was a massive drag on the USSR both in terms of sapping it militarily as well as politically. He was cutting losses. Biden, on the other hand, inherited a won war which was only in a very low level maintenance phase where only a small US force was good enough to support the Afghans to hold down the Taliban indefinitely.

Unfortunately, dumbass Trump, [Trump's Afghan idiocy was one area he broke with Republicans and conservatives] with his massive hard-on for isolationism and being "historic" - imagining it was his "Nixon goes to China" moment - had already made moves to try to "make peace" with the Taliban. This gave Biden the political cover he needed to simply pull out without any real peace, whining "Trump started it". He didn't do this because the Taliban was putting pressure in terms of casualties - no Americans had died in combat in YEARS - but rather because the Democrat base sees the US military as evil occupiers and wants us pulled out of everywhere except when the Euros need some muscle to beat up someone the international media doesn't like (Assad, Gaddafi, Milosevic).

So there is a big difference in causation. For Biden, he was simply satisfying his activist voting base, whose motives had absolutely nothing to do with the success of the operation. For Gorbachev, he wanted to get the USSR out from under its diplomatic pariah status as well as stop the bleeding from a war that wasn't going well for Russia and was going to be a big drag in casualties and money for the foreseeable future.

Also nice job ignoring that your government fell in minus 3 weeks, while theirs lasted 3 years.

The US has always been cursed with craven "allies". The South Vietnamese were shitty people and utter incompetents. The US demanded its allies follow globohomo and offered fat sums of money to comply. This results in the cultivation of greedy cowards who arrive only to suckle and leech. That's the down side of being free market capitalist instead of ideological communist. Communism does an outstanding job of tricking fools into fighting and dying for lost causes. Capitalism teaches people to give up and run away to selfishly save their own skins the moment sentiment shifts.

Also, you're being disingenuous. As you full well know, the Soviets continued to support and prop up their proxy after they left. The whole reason the Afghani coward government collapsed and the Afghani army refused to fight, was that Biden had pulled all support as part of his "get us the fuck out no matter what" policy even after having made the Afghanis dependent on that support. So the Afghanis got rug pulled and lost all their contractor support. Air cover and recon and intel and logistics were all pulled out from under them, and they were like "fuck this, I'm not going to fight so women can vote". About 10k Afghani commandos were actually willing to fight, and had successfully held the Taliban on their own for a few years already, yet they required a long support tail. When we rug pulled them, I believe one of their units got stuck and fucked over. After that, they basically said "fuck this" and went home.

Oh, and that's another failure of western liberalism: the arrogant hubris that liberal politics is The Correct Answer and that all societies must inexorably obsess over the "rights" of women -> faggots -> trannies in that order, so when they run into a people who are like "lol no gtfo with that shit", they don't understand what is going on. Libtards can't even conceive that a society could exist based on anything other than globohomo, and any dissenters are just seen as evil/ignorant, much like how you see Biden talking about "MAGA Republicans" even now.

I've already told you that the true cause for the US inability to end the Taliban was pure globohomo. If the US had merely told the Afghanis, "you can have a Constitution based on sharia law and you don't have to given women rights if you don't want to" the war would have been over in a few years and Afghanistan would be just another conservative muslim country like saudi arabia. The whole reason they kept fighting was to resist the imposition of globohomo.

8
SoctaticMethod1 8 points ago +8 / -0

Hmm, what tune to go with? I don't know whether to pick "I don't want to set the world on fire" or "Jingle, jangle, jingle" for my future apocalypse roaming.

Humour aside, I would say that NATO isn't dumb enough to accept and Turkey definitely would block this but the US is the real problem. Their VP can't remember who's their allies while standing at their border so they might accept by mistake.

3
TheImpossible1 [S] 3 points ago +5 / -2

How about "We didn't start the fire"? Or "Two Tribes", or maybe "Burning Heart".

All the cold war songs are relevant again.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
1
dekachin 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's not true. The sole criteria to join is that all the members vote you in.

6
cccpneveragain 6 points ago +6 / -0

NATO should tell him to piss off. But they won't

3
AntonioOfVenice 3 points ago +3 / -0

They definitely will. Even NATO isn't this stupid.

3
Bottle_of_Memes 3 points ago +3 / -0

Looking at how they threw themselves over Finland and Sweden, I'm not so sure.

2
AntonioOfVenice 2 points ago +2 / -0

Those were not red lines for Russia though. Nor were they at war. I'd have thought that it would be smart for Russia to declare war on them pro forma.

-1
dekachin -1 points ago +2 / -3

I'm sure NATO is very afraid of Russia when Russia can't even beat Ukraine in a 1v1 and is forced to use conscripts and is fully committed with no reserves. LOL

2
AntonioOfVenice 2 points ago +3 / -1

Russia has 6000 highly trained and destructive conscripts.

-1
dekachin -1 points ago +2 / -3

The US has nukes too, except ours are far better maintained and more accurate. The US also has a credible ABM capability whereas Russia does not.

Nobody in the world who actually has nukes, is going to use them, because using them would be suicide.

The Soviets didn't use them even when the USSR collapsed. Why didn't the USSR use them when the US helped supply stinger missiles to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

Swinging your dick by citing nukes is useless unless you are literally suicidal, and nobody who would ever be trusted with the launch codes would be.

2
AntonioOfVenice 2 points ago +3 / -1

The US has nukes too, except ours are far better maintained and more accurate.

Tut, tut, the Russians have more, and accuracy isn't really an issue. A thousand would make all of the US uninhabitable.

The US also has a credible ABM capability whereas Russia does not.

What a joke. Your ABM is just as much of a joke as your Lupron 'civilization'.

Nobody in the world who actually has nukes, is going to use them

Ah, your usual foolishness. No one who isn't willing to use them would ever ascend to such a position. You lose all leverage when you are not willing to use them. And considering that both Russia and the Evil Empire have spent a lot of money modernizing their nuclear forces, it is pretty obvious that use of nuclear weapons is in the cards. You would not bother keeping 6000 or modernizing them otherwise.

The Soviets didn't use them even when the USSR collapsed

Why would they? The USSR collapsed due to Gorbachev. Was he going to give the command to nuke his own Kremlin office?

Why didn't the USSR use them when the US helped supply stinger missiles to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

This is an undeclared war. The belligerent is not Ukraine, it is the US. You're paying for their budget and for all their weapons. So yeah. It is a shame that Putin is so risk-averse, or you would never have dared.

Swinging your dick by citing nukes is useless unless you are literally suicidal, and nobody who would ever be trusted with the launch codes would be.

You fantasize about the destruction of Russia and the lynching of Putin. At that point, they may as well. In sheer terms of numbers, Russia would come out ahead. Only 162 million people live in Russia, whereas 330 million live in the US and many hundreds of millions more in its slave states (pls no bully Russia). Losing 162 million for 800 million is good business, if I may be flippant.

1
MetallicBioMeat 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why would they? The USSR collapsed due to Gorbachev. Was he going to give the command to nuke his own Kremlin office?

It would be the only way to be sure that communism cannot rise again in russia!

-2
TheImpossible1 [S] -2 points ago +2 / -4

Membership :

Albania

Belgium

Bulgaria

Canada

Not a chance.

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

Not a chance.

Estonia

Not a chance.

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Italy

Not a chance.

Latvia

Lithuania

Not a chance. The instigator's accomplice.

Luxembourg

Montenegro

Netherlands

North Macedonia

Norway

Not a chance.

Poland

Not a chance.

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Not a chance.

Turkey

United Kingdom

Not a chance.

United States

The instigator


Who will do the right thing?

I think our hopes hinge on Erdoğan.

5
WhitePhoenix 5 points ago +5 / -0

This is why I said we should NEVER be involved. If Ukraine joints NATO that's an automatic delaration of war by all the NATO allies.

4
realerfunction 4 points ago +4 / -0

your fake country is not worth dying of radiation poisoning

4
MagnumRabbits 4 points ago +4 / -0

Those relying on Turkey to deny the application, I wouldn't be so confident.

However, those thinking that Ukraine is going to get a fast-tracked acceptance into NATO shouldn't feel that confident either.

My money is that NATO is going to continue playing the game it is now, consider Ukraine, and as things simmer down (and Russia is in a significantly weaker position) Ukraine will be welcomed in.

2
downnice 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thing with Turkey is Erdogan has his own agenda and the treaty preventing them from going after their old middle eastern holdings expires next year.

I think theyll vote yes and then do their own annexation of Syria

2
JiggsawCalrissian 2 points ago +3 / -1

Despite him being a penis-haver (gotta be pc) I think this counts under #morefeminineway

0
TheImpossible1 [S] 0 points ago +3 / -3

Considering his handler is clearly Von Der Leyen, I agree.

2
Galean 2 points ago +2 / -0

I honestly don't think Putin will go nuclear. This may end up just ending the war. Putin is a lot of things but I do not believe he would endanger his country by using nukes. If he does he would have to nuke the entire west and somehow make sure he does not get nuked back.

1
spambot 1 point ago +1 / -0

sadly he has a rather good smokescreen opertunity to use a bio weapon now and theres a good chance china will get the blame for it. he could cripple the west and do so quietly. so no need for a nuke just drop the virus and watch the usa tear itself apart... again.

2
GeneralBoobs 2 points ago +2 / -0

I too look forward to Russian's great western glass parking lot.