Comments by "bobby hans" (@user-oc7ll9sv5r) on "Jake Broe"
channel.
-
1
-
Appeasement & Armageddon: Giving in to Vladimir Putin’s nuclear blackmail will spark an unprecedented nuclear arms race and make a future nuclear war far more likely!! There is a reason why the Soviet Union, nor any nuclear power, never launched a first strike (nuclear attack) since World War 2, despite all of the Cold War fears that the Soviets would.
And it’s because you can't launch a first strike without being annihilated in the second strike. I remember in the 80s when The Day After aired, and everyone hoped the Soviets would see the movie and learn the lesson. Probably not realizing the Soviets can be trusted to act in the best self-interests...which mutually assured destruction is clearly against... and that the Soviets knew this since the 60s, if not the 50s. -- How is it any different today?
Even if Putin had the launch codes (he doesn't), or the ability to order a first strike by himself (he doesn't), even he would know the response is not going to be 'more sanctions'. -- The only way I could fathom Russia using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, or against any enemy country, is the FSB had a foolproof plan to blame am ISIS terror cell, or rogue Chechen element, or claim the Ukrainians did it in a false-flag conspiracy to frame the Russians. -- But that would require a convincing story on how such an element got the nuclear weapon 'elsewhere', and eliminating everyone involved in the planning and execution. Whatever the case, Russia would need absolute plausible deniability. --
Here's my two cents, if there was really a way to use a nuclear weapon against an enemy without equal repercussions, Russia and China (and the US) would have figured it out a long time ago and did it already.
All NATO must do is take out Moscow and 5 -6 other cities to take out all of Russia.... But Russia must take out city's all over the planet from
USA , CANADA ,FRANCE UK. ALL OF EUROPE and as far away as , AUSTRALIA and so on and so on ...
United Kingdom 225 warheads (submarine delivery systems new and up to date systems )
France 300 warheads
(submarine delivery systems new and up to date systems )
United States 7,315 warheads
(Mixed delivery systems new and up to date systems )
Russia 8,000 warheads
(Mixed delivery systems old mostly from the soviet union times NOT up to date systems )
RUSSIA IS AT DISADVANTAGE !!! and they know it Putin's regime knows its and that is why they will not use nukes they will hint and shout about nukes but that's it !!
1
-
To put things in perspective, Ukraine had 176 ICBMs and over 2000 tactical nukes along with bombers able to carry them. They gave it all up in exchange for security guarantees from USA, UK and Russia ( Budapest Memorandum 1994 ). One would say that assisting Ukraine now when its being invaded should be obvious thing to do when you signed up on their security and they gave up literally thousands nukes...
Appeasement & Armageddon: Giving in to Vladimir Putin’s nuclear blackmail will spark an unprecedented nuclear arms race and make a future nuclear war far more likely!!
There is a reason why the Soviet Union, nor any nuclear power, never launched a first strike (nuclear attack) since Word War 2, despite all of the Cold War fears that the Soviets would. And its because you can't launch a first strike without being annihilated in the second strike. I remember in the 80s when The Day After aired, and everyone hoped the Soviets would see the movie and learn the lesson. Probably not realizing the Soviets can be trusted to act in the best self-interests...which mutually assured destruction is clearly against... and that the Soviets knew this since the 60s, if not the 50s. -- How is it any different today?
Even if Putin had the launch codes (he doesn't), or the ability to order a first strike by himself (he doesn't), even he would know the response is not going to be 'more sanctions'. -- The only way I could fathom Russia using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, or against any enemy country, is the FSB had a foolproof plan to blame am ISIS terror cell, or rogue Chechen element, or claim the Ukrainians did it in a false-flag conspiracy to frame the Russians. -- But that would require a convincing story on how such an element got the nuclear weapon 'elsewhere', and eliminating everyone involved in the planning and execution. Whatever the case, Russia would need absolute plausible deniability. -- Here's my two cents, if there was really a way to use a nuclear weapon against an enemy without equal repercussions, Russia and China (and the US) would have figured it out a long time ago and did it already.
All NATO must do is take out Moscow and 5 -6 other city's to take out all of Russia.... But Russia must take out city's all over the planet from USA , CANADA ,FRANCE UK. ALL OF EUROPE and as far away as , AUSTRALIA and so on and so on ...
United Kingdom 225 warheads (submarine delivery systems new and up to date systems )
France 300 warheads
(submarine delivery systems new and up to date systems )
United States 7,315 warheads
(Mixed delivery systems new and up to date systems )
Russia 8,000 warheads
(Mixed delivery systems old mostly from the soviet union times NOT up to date systems )
RUSSIA IS AT DISADVANTAGE !!! and they know it Putin's regime knows its and that is why they will not use nukes they will hint and shout about nukes but that's it !!
1
-
What really gets me is that some ppl. are now saying why does Ukraine not just let Russia have the areas /land it’s just a small part of Ukraine anyway.....
A small part of Ukraine ...WE ARE taking about a land mass is almost 200,000 sq km
In EU terms thats the size of Belgium, Holland, luxembourg and Greece all put together..
In UK terms that the size of all of Scotland , Wales and 80% of England all put together !!
In US terms is the size of South Carolina, West Virginia and New Jersey all put together !!
Why the f. should Ukraine give Russia all that land for what? TO ONLY be invaded some years later when Russia as had a brake and regrouped ,rebuilt its army and fortified positions !!
I SAY RUSSIA GETS TO TAKE LAND AND DEMAND UKRAINE CAN NOT JOIN NATO IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AT ALL !! Nobody wants to be a "buffer country". NO nation wants to have a little bit of freedom !!!! ; The whole concept is demeaning to an independent nation. NO nation wants to have a little bit of freedom and self-determination, like some sort of 2nd class country; That is not right, and Russia has no right to demand or bully Ukrainians or Ukraine to accept that Ukraine and its ppl. should become some sort of lap dog on a leash 2nd class country to serve kremlins geopolitical agenda; so Kremlin, Putin and RuZZans can feel better about themselves ...
Eastern European countries (ex soviet countries like Poland the baltic states ect ect ..) joined NATO because they are scared of Russia and want to be and stay independent. Nobody forced them to join NATO they was the ones running and knocking and begging to be able to join NATO and the EU ,,, .
When Russia invaded Ukraine Russia then just showed why it was a good idea for those countries to join NATO, because if they didn't they might just have got invaded as well just like Ukraine and Georgia did .
During Soviet times those Eastern European countries were nothing less than Russia puppet states. If they didn't join NATO after the fall of the USSR then they for sure couldn't guarantee their own independence from Russia.
Nato did nothing wrong, the only mistake was Ukraine not joining NATO to ensure Ukraines independence; Remember former satellite states like Poland, Romania, Czech Republic and The Baltic states, Slovakia ect ect all came running by their own accord, knocking, kicking, screaming and banging at the front door of EU and NATO begging to come in, no one forced them into it .
If Russia was not such a asshole country and stoped constantly bulling neighboring countries maybe other neighboring countries will not need to join NATO and by more open and welcoming to Russia ..
Also these people who advocate this view that Ukraine shroud just give up land and appeasement to Russians wants wishes are also being very ignorant to the fact that there were already treaties in place between Russia and Ukraine where Russia respecting the integrity of Ukraine's borders plus other treaties relating to the seas around Ukraine.
Putin has already broken those treaties.
Why would Ukraine believe Putin would stick to a new treaty when he's just broken half a dozen of the previous Russia Ukraine treaties and agreements.
Russia has demonstrated its treaties and agreements are worthless and you enter them at your great peril.
1
-
US. and UK., gave Ukraine a guarantee of protecting Ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity based on the 1991 borders that included Crimea and east Ukraine Luhansk and Donbass..
As of the result of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, US., gave Ukraine a guarantee that the US, stands now as a grantor of Ukraine sovereignty , becouse Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons and back then, Ukraine had the world's third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile !!
This guarantee was reconfirmed by United States when in 2009 released a statement that the memorandum's security assurances would still be respected after the expiration of the START Treaty
After the annexation of Crimea by in 2014, The US, Canada, the UK, France along with other countries, stated that Russian involvement was a breach of its obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum and in violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Let me explain and give some Content !!
According to the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they would:
1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine to influence their politics.
4. Seek immediate action to provide assistance Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments
We need to understand that EITHER the word/ deals and / or the grantees of the west are worth something or they are not !!
1
-
Let's see it form this side ; See it from a different angle.
If America was invaded by its neighboring country say Mexico or Canada or Russia that borders Alaska and Russia says for historical reasons (Alaska used to be Russian ) we are taking Alaska becouse it used to be part of Russia so we are taking back ; could you imagine what America would say? will Trump and Vance and the US just let Russia take Alaska in the ints. of world peace !!???
if the rest of the world said that Mexico can just walking in as an aggressor and can take back Texas to New Mexico and all land all the way to Nevada, will US agree to that in the ints. of world peace ?? Will America agree to not be part of any pace talks and be put on the side line and just let European Union or China deal with Putin over Alaska to make peace with Russia for taking Alaska .. becouse Russia has nuclear weapons ?..
The EU goes in and asked Putin for a pace talk to make a deal on how things will be regarding Putin getting Alaska back AND THE EU TELLS the US. you don't get to come to the "pace talks"
I don't think Trump or the American people would agree to "make pace" so why would and should Ukraine agree to their country being carved up and given to Putin. Throughout this last year that's how American thought has been perceived in the West. This so called 'deal' is not a commodity to be bought or sold.
LIKE i have said before ... Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Trump says just give up on wanting your cities, your land back your people , back ; becouse its just a small bitt of landmass anyway that Russia wants so just give it up and we all can have some peace ..
lets get the facts correct here 120,000 km2 of land we are talking about here ..
For the European Union that land mass will be about the same as Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg alltogether..
And for the United Kingdom we are talking about Scotland and all but of England all put together !!
When it comes to how much land that is for America South Carolina, West Virginia will have been lost !!
Why the f. should Ukraine give Russia all that land for what? TO ONLY be invaded some years later when Russia as had a brake and regrouped ,rebuilt its army and fortified positions !!
I SAY RUSSIA GETS TO TAKE LAND AND DEMAND UKRAINE CAN NOT JOIN NATO IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AT ALL !! Nobody wants to be a "buffer country". NO nation wants to have a little bit of freedom !!!! ; The whole concept is demeaning to an independent nation. NO nation wants to have a little bit of freedom and self-determination, like some sort of 2nd class country; That is not right, and Russia has no right to demand or bully Ukrainians or Ukraine to accept that Ukraine and its ppl. should become some sort of lap dog on a leash 2nd class country to serve kremlins geopolitical agenda; so Kremlin, Putin and RuZZans can feel better about themselves ..
FACT ; December 1974, Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) Article 5:
1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.
2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.
3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful. (*this includes any deals on minerals made under pressure*)
1
-
ON A SIDE NOTE : Even Igor Gerkin (aka ; Igor Strelkov) has no illusions about Russia is loosing in Ukraine her wrote this article take a look ..
Speculations on what would be good not to come true (for the coming year 2025)
So, the situation for the Russian Federation is characterized negatively: by the end of the third year of the FULL OUT INVASION, none of the tasks declared earlier as “goals of the NWO” has been fulfilled or is close to fulfillment:
1) The “Zelensky regime” has not been overthrown, but is holding on tighter than in 2022. “Under the war” the ‘derusification’ of Ukraine continued at an accelerated pace, the UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate was reformed, Nazi propaganda ‘brainwashed’ the population, hatred of Russia not only did not decrease, but increased manifold.
2) No “demilitarization of Ukraine” was achieved. On the contrary, - in front of our front there is a huge (several hundred thousand) group, armed hardly better than before the beginning of SWO, well organized, experienced, resistant and (despite the fatigue from the war) not showing any signs of soon disintegration. Part of this group is fighting on the territory of the “old regions” of the Russian Federation - in the Kursk region, from where our troops have failed to dislodge the enemy for more than 4 months. The AFU is increasing missile and drone attacks on the deep rear of our troops, reaching up to the Volga and beyond, hitting industrial and infrastructural facilities on an increasing scale from month to month.
3) The territories of the “new regions” (except for the Luhansk People's Republic) have not been liberated from the enemy: the enemy continues to firmly hold the capital and the right-bank part of the Kherson region, the capital and a significant part of the Zaporizhzhya region, and significant territories of the DNR. Our successes in Kharkiv region are insignificant and have not gone beyond the purely tactical. There is no chance that all “constitutional” territories of the Russian Federation can be liberated militarily in the near future.
To summarize - the NWO - in the form in which it started - has failed (has not achieved its objectives).
At one time one general, looking at the field of an already lost battle, said to Napoleon: “The battle is lost, but we still have time to win a second one.” (this was at the Battle of Marengo, which ended with the defeat of the seemingly victorious Austrian army). The point is that General Desaix brought reserves with him and they completely changed the course of the battle.
Do we and the enemy have reserves?
In the first case - the answer is ambiguous. Theoretically, yes. There are, and very significant. We still do not have a country at war, only the army is at war. There has been no mobilization of the armed forces and industry (the rear, the entire economy, etc.), except for individual (non-complex) measures of a “one-off” nature. As a result, we still have a significant mobilization potential, which, theoretically, could be used.
But “in practice” - we have a completely opposite and depressing picture: the army, which did not receive timely and sufficient means for a decisive victory, is exhausted and exsanguinated. Its forces are still enough to hold the front and even in some places (“turtle step”) to move forward with difficulty, winning purely tactical (but very “expensive”) successes. But the prospects for a strategic victory - to defeat the opposing forces of the enemy and force him (at least!) to sign a peace “on our terms” are more than doubtful. Simply put, our troops can “stall for time in the hope of chance” for quite a long time, but they cannot win. In its current form, at least.
Will general mobilization help us now (I emphasize!)? - I find it difficult to answer this question unequivocally. On the one hand, Napoleon (as in the battle of Marengo) would have been able to skillfully use all the reserves that came up. On the other hand, we somehow do not have “Napoleons”.
Both the country, the army and the population are already very tired of the three-year bloody and not very successful, to put it mildly, military campaign. The industry acutely feels the shortage of technical resources, and the stock of military equipment is apparently close to exhaustion (“thanks” to the “Syrian adventure”, “sales” for free/on credit from Rosoboronexport, “gifts” to “our African friends”, etc., etc.). I am not sure (I have no information, but I have my doubts): can the Ministry of Defense now arm, clothe, educate, train, organize, feed, form into units and formations, and then put into combat at least half a million more fighters? And for a strategic victory over “Ukraine” alone (I emphasize!) we need no less (and as if not one and a half or two times more), and these half a million should be “put to the front” not by “bringing water in glasses”, but at once or (in the extreme case) in two or three steps.
In addition to the “technical points” there is a second question: how will the country/people feel about this very general mobilization now - after “three years of bloody drudgery”? Instead of the long-awaited large reserves for the front, won't we get “fuel” for a revolt of the mobilized? Similar to what happened in Petrograd in February 1917? And there are prerequisites for this, as there are (I am more than sure of it) and forces in the so-called “elite” ready to initiate such a revolt, the discontent of the “liberal-western” part of which is hardly a secret for the country's leadership and special services. It seems that I am not alone in thinking of such negative options.... Perhaps they are taken into account in determining the “course for the earliest possible peaceful settlement”, which has already been openly proclaimed (just today I heard it performed by the patriarch): “Peace, you say? - Well, as we know. “A bad peace is better than a good war.”
But will Moscow expect this very “thin peace”? - I personally doubt it... And to demonstrate the validity of my doubts, I am going to characterize the situation (according to my estimates, of course) in the camp of the enemy. And I state: while waging an all-out war, the AFU has reserves. They have them both now and in the near future. According to various (reaching me) data, from 150 to 300 thousand newly mobilized soldiers are undergoing combat training in the EU countries. Plus, a part of the military is being trained in the so-called “Ukraine” itself. Let's subtract (for a fair account) 100 thousand deserters, “evaders”, etc. - and still we will get another 200 thousand enemy soldiers at the front by the spring of 2025. Let's assume that half of them will go to re-staff the broken and shattered units and formations. But even 100 thousand soldiers is, in fact, 3-4 full-fledged corps (or two armies). Which the enemy is preparing (receiving equipment from the U.S. and Europe, which are the “inviolable rear” of the AFU) not for a “truce”, but, of course, for his new offensive. And until it “burns” these (as well as newly created) reserves in a new attempt to break through our front, the so-called “Ukraine” will not agree to any truce. Even if it is suddenly “cut off” supplies of arms and equipment from the U.S. (supplies from Britain, France and Germany will continue this year with a 99% probability).
That is - in the next 4-6 months there will be no truce for sure, and the further depends solely on how successfully and efficiently our Armed Forces will repel another “onslaught” of a strong, experienced and well-armed enemy. I would like to believe that the “attack” will be as successful as it was in the summer of 2023, but even when it becomes a fact from an assumption, the question of “what to do next?” will remain on the agenda. - will remain on the agenda. Since there is only one “Ukraine” fighting against us today, and who might join it tomorrow is an uncertain question. But there are “candidates” - “limited participation” of NATO troops - already discussed and even put on the agenda at the highest level in the EU countries. Romania's participation in the liquidation of the unfortunate Transnistria is very likely, and after the events in Syria, it is even awkward to discuss the “reliability of a Turkish friend”....
In order for vultures to be afraid of “flying to the corpse of their prey”, it is necessary to be able to show that we are “still very much alive”. And this again requires real successes on the front. And they will not be achieved if large and well-trained (and also manageable!) reserves are not prepared.
“Our song is good - start again...”. Perhaps these words can be put in the title of this letter. If it reaches you, of course.
Igor Strelkov
1
-
1
-
Understand this simple fact ..
TRUMP dose not support Russia ;
TRUMP dose not support Ukraine ;
TRUMP dose not support NATO ;
TRUMP dose not support Europe ;
TRUMP dose not support UK;
TRUMP dose not support AMERICA ;
TRUMP ONLY SUPPORTS TRUMP !!!!
Trump will act in what he sees as his best interest regardless of what that is ; So if he directly benefits or indirectly benefits siding with anyone or anything he WILL DO THAT !!
All you need do, if you want Trumps backing is simple just sweeten the honey pot , more than the other guy , show Trump he has more to directly and indirectly to gain standing with you contra the other guy !!
(Trump is deal oriented not ideology orientated ; remember Trump does not think in abstract teams in the traditional sense he is often inconsistent in the way he applies his values, his political action and ideas , etc etc. to his political stands / beliefs (take a look at his actions not his words ) he can change direction within a flash if he believes its more beneficial to him ) Concepts like fairness, justice, honor, and integrity quite literally do not register. You can see this in every interview or press encounter. He never states an abstract thought or idea.
"Instead he falls back on simple adjectives: disgraceful, horrible, low-intelligence, perfect, innocent, nasty, stupid, fake, etc. He's driven by negative emotion, often paranoid and often insulting, vulgar, vitriolic." (he will one day talk extremely ill of someone if he believes it benefits him the next day he will make them into The Vice President if he thinks it benefits Trump; JD Vance was one point knocking heads with Trump now he is VP, As the poles showed JD was very popular within the Republican base .
Trump will say someone is the worst enemy of the US. then the next day he will flip flop and shake their hand just look at Kim Jong Un of North Korea ; one day he was the rocket man that Trump was going to nuke then the next day he was his best friend (when trump though making a deal will give trump a noble pace prize) ; now Kim is back in the Trump bad box )
TRUMP IS FOR TRUMP ITS THAT SIMPLE UNDERSTAND THIS AND ITS GAME SETT AND MATCH WHEN DEALING WITH HIM !!
1
-
1
-
1
-
THE MYTH … The USSR defeated-nazigermany without the help of allies. The Russian forces could have won the war without the help of other nationalities of the Soviet Union
THE TRUTH Soviet textbooks described the role of Soviet allies in the war in a rather superficial manner. While they are blamed for allowing the occupation of the Czech republic and waited till the last moment to open up the Second front, little is said about US help as part of the lend-lease program.
During the Cold War, this myth was particularly important, as it elevated the contribution of the Soviet Union and diminished the contributions of its allies who were now on the other side of the Iron Wall. Today, in line with the growing isolation of Russia from the West, this myth is once again accentuated, one recent example being the book of now-Minister of Culture of Russia Volodymyr Medynsky “War. Myths of the USSR. 1939-1945.”
In reality, the lend-lease was one of the decisive factors in the victory of the Allied forces against the Axis. The USSR, and Russia as its successor, still has not repaid its debt for the lend-lease to the USA.
According to different estimates, western equipment added up to:
* 12-16% of the equipment of the Soviet armored troops;
* 10-15% of USSR’s aviation
* 32.4% of its Navy.
Up to 70% of the transport of the Soviet army came from the USA, meaning that the Soviet army drove around mainly on US cars. While the USSR released only 600 trucks for mounting “Katyusha” mortars, the USA contributed 20,000 American Studebaker trucks, making it the main vehicle for Soviet artillery. Apart from that, the lend-lease program gave USSR 56% of its railroad tracks and 43% of tires; 42% of it sugar, 108% of meat preserves, 18% of aviation fuel.
The amount of locomotives that the West provided exceeded the USSR’s production by 2.4 times and the amount of train cars – by 10.2 times. The amount of food that the USSR received as part of the lend-lease would have been enough to feed a 10-million army over 1688 days, i.e. the whole course of the war.
THE MYTH…. For the USSR, World War II started on 22 June 1941. The proper name of the war is the “Great Patriotic War,” because the USSR was defending itself against the-nazzi-invasion
THE TRUTH .. In reality , the USSR started the war on 17 September 1939, when the Red Army crossed the border with Poland, occupying it in accordance to the union between the Third Reich and Soviet Union, outlined by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. “German and Soviet troops walked hand in hand. This was called a ‘military brotherhood’ in the USSR, before the war broke out,” noted Oleksandr Zinchenko from the Institute of National Memory. After Hitler started the war in Europe, the USSR provided economic assistance to-nazigermany-The USSR attempted to conceal these facts of collaboration with Hitler with the concept of the “Great Patriotic War,” which started out as a mere ideological cliché pronounced by Joseph Stalin during a radio broadcast on 3 July 1941, after-nazigermany-invaded Soviet Ukraine.
Today, the concept of “Great Patriotic War” is being used by the Russian Federation as an alternative to World War II in attempts to maintain its influence on Ukraine and post-Soviet republics.
THE MYTH.. The USSR is an innocent victim of German aggression and was always an enemy of the-nazzis-and did not work with them
THE TRUTH..: The USSR signed a non-aggression pact with-nazigermany-the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, that not only defined broad economic cooperation with the Third Reich and agreement on mutual non-aggression, but also contained a secret protocol by which the USSR and Germany agreed to divide up Europe.
During Soviet times, and in Russia today, the existence of the-nazi–Soviet-pact was explained as a necessity that came only after fruitless negotiations with Britain and France, and that the invasions of Poland were unconnected to the pact. In fact, Stalin willingly ruined attempts to establish an anti-Hitler coalition. During 12-21 August 1939, negotiations with Britain and France about collaborating to meet growing security challenges associated with the Third Reich took place in Moscow, but did not amount to an agreement because the Soviet leadership demanded the right to occupy Poland’s regions Halychyna and Vilenska Oblast (today, western regions of Ukraine and Belarus), which the other side could not condone.
Both Stalin and Hitler were unsatisfied with the world order that came about after World War I, which made their collaboration natural. On 19 August 1939, Stalin spoke about the necessity to urge Europe into a great war, which would be an overture to a “world revolution;” on 23 August 1939, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed, outlining broad economic cooperation between the USSR and the Third Reich, and violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a range of independent countries.
In addition to the stated clauses of the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact, a secret protocol was adopted, dividing territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland into German and Soviet “spheres of influence”, anticipating potential “territorial and political rearrangements” of these countries. The Kremlin denied the existence of the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact up to 1992.
The Soviet-nazi-military collaboration is undeniably clear in photographs from the German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk on 22 September 1939 during the invasion of Poland.
The pact had the most tragic consequences for European nations and the world; it is this agreement that became the mechanism opening the doors for a new world war. What followed was the invasion of Poland by-nazigermany-and the USSR, followed by the further carving up of Europe.
1
-
1
-
RONNY REAGAN TOLD IT AS IT IS...
Our enemies may be irrational, even outright insane, driven by nationalism, religion, ethnicity or ideology. They do not fear the United States for its diplomatic skills or the number of automobiles and software programs it produces. They respect only the firepower of our tanks, planes and helicopter gunships." - Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan at the time was talking about the Russian controlled soviet union and the soviet union ALSO HAD Nuclear weapons and soviet union was controlled by the same type of personality types as KGB Putin after all Putin is a product of the soviet KGB...
And just like KGB Putin the soviets also did a lot of shouting about using Nuclear weapons and wiping out the west and wiping out Europe from the face of the earth ect ect ect...bla bla bla bla ,,,,,
Yes talking big is typical for Russians they like to intimidate.. It is not the big talkers you need to be afraid off it is the ones that don't talk and just act... Just like the USA when they bombed japan not 1 time but 2 times ...
BIG TALKING RUSSIA'S have never dropped the bomb as they just like to intimidate like all cowards and bullies do..
“Putin bases his policies on Lenin’s principle: probe with bayonets; if you encounter mush, proceed; if you encounter steel, withdraw,” “With Obama, and Angela Merkel the thug that is KGB Putin has encountered mush never hard core steel, and that’s why Putin continues to challenge the west time after time.”
Putin will NOT use Nuclear weapons if he or when he invades Ukraine !!!
AND HERE IS WHY !!
1. If he did use Nuclear weapons then he will be not just nuking Ukraine but the fallout will hit Europe and the Baltic ’s the blast and fallout will also hit East Ukraine, Crimea, Poland Belorussia, and parts of Russia as well ect..
2. If he bombed Ukraine Putin will get the orthodox church against him for taking out Pecerska Lavra and make the Lavra into a nuclear wasteland for 1000 years the center of orthodox faith in the world and the far right orthodox is Putin's power base at home losing the orthodox church will be political suicide for Putin,,
3. How will it look like if he bombed Ukraine and the fallout of the blast will rain down onto Russians in Europe and in Ukraine millions of Russians live in the EU and Ukraine now and all of the Russian elite children in schools in western Europe, even Putin's own daughter and ex-wife live in Holland..
It is not like back in the day of the USSR when almost no Russian was living in Europe, and in the Baltic’s 20% are ethnic Russians in Ukraine, 17,6 % are ethnic Russians.. How can he claim to be defending Russians abroad if he is nuking them ??
4.If he did this than any friends he has in the international community will run for cover and distance themselves from him and RuSSia in every way they can, they will admit openly that Putin is a mad man, that needs to be taken out asap..even his good old buddy in Syria Assad and his good buddy in Minsk Mr Lukanhesko will not return his phone calls and run for cover.
5. Russia will become an international outcast and pariah state and diplomatic relations with the rest of the world will be over even including China, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, and every other nut job country will cut off diplomatic relations with Russia !!..
6.USA and NATO and its allies and even most likely even Japan (and probably even China) will respond with an all-out attack on Russia and Putin and Moscow will only be left in history books just like the soviet union is now ...
7.Putin like Hitler and Stalin is a very smart calculated psychopath he is not crazy or insane and does not have a political death wish or any other type of death wish for that matter, he pushes as far as he feels he can and then backs down if he feels he gets pushed back, and if he doesn't get pushed back he continues until he does.
Like I have said before ...
“Putin bases his policies on Lenin’s principle: probe with bayonets; if you encounter mush, proceed; if you encounter steel, withdraw, “With Angela Merkel and Obama the KGB thug that is Putin has only encountered mush never any real HARDCORE steel, and that’s why he continues to challenge the world time after time.”
Russia’s sphere of influence..
Well I say Russia’s sphere of influence argument is a big propaganda clam, Russia has no special rights to tell Ukraine or the Baltics nations what they as a nation can do or not do...,
Russia can not just because it borders those nation tell them what it can or do or not do anymore then Russia can tell Norway or Finland what they can or cannot do because they border Russia..or any other country say China that also borders Russia..
Can Russia tell USA what it can do because it borders Alaska ?
No Russia does not have any special rights over Ukraine or the Baltic nations this is absolutely hogwash sovereign nations are just that sovereign nations after all we are living in 2022 not 1722 .. Mr KGB Putin !!
IF Putin hurts one hair on the head of any NATO nation or the USA then all of NATO will respond
And her is a bombshell....that Putin must also know as Putin is crazy but he is NOT stupid ..
When it comes to firepower USA and the west is unto in some cases up-to 19 times the size of Russia ... Just take f. exs.
Now let's take a look at the nuclear weapons !!
Putin lose her as well and he know it !!!
United Kingdom 225 warheads (submarine delivery systems new and up to date systems )
France 300 warheads
(submarine delivery systems new and up to date systems )
United States 6,970 warheads
(Mixed delivery systems new and up to date systems )
Russia 7,300 warheads
(Mixed delivery systems old mostly from the soviet union times NOT up to date systems )
SO THAT GIVES NATO TOTAL of 7485 warheads with up to date delivery systems..
AND THAT PUTS RUSSIA AT A DISADVANTAGE of 195 warheads with substandard old delivery systems..
See link here for confirmation of nukes in the world www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/
Nations that are hosting nuclear weapons for other NATO nuclear powers are Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey...
Nations in NATO nuclear alliances..(will take nukes fire systems on their territory if war broke out )
Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain ALL NATO or NATO friendly..
Base on this facts Russia does not stand a chance as most of NATO warheads are on Subs. and NOT in silos like Russia that makes it easy to take out with NATOs defiance systems ...
All NATO must do is take out Moscow and 5 -6 other cities to take out all of Russia....
But Russia must take out city's all over the planet from USA , CANADA ,FRANCE UK. ALL OF EUROPE and as fare away as , AUSTRALIA and so on and so on ...
A good exs. of how bad Russian systems really are is…
The Soviet-made rocket was fired on the town in 30 kilometres to South-West of Aleppo Putins forces attacked the town in Syria with ballistic missile – but missed all of the town "The town of Ma'arat al-Na'asan, 30 km S-W of Aleppo, was attacked (missed) by a Russian SS-21 ballistic missile and the missiles did not hit any part of the town ,
1
-
It is not Putin who made modern Russia or Russians, it is Russia and Russians who made Putin !!!.
James Monroe 5th US President in his First Inaugural Address, 1817 he said ..
“A Government is a reflection of the people; it is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty.Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin."
I SAY … Putin is just a symptom of the diseased psychotic nation that is Russia..
Like James Monroe says .. The Voices of Government Reflect the People..
The Russian people endorsement of the evil of Putin's regime is without parallel any other place on earth 89% support him in his evil and have voted for him time after time after time….
After all the Russians do know the truth about Putin by now, they know who he is, what he does , what he will do, and what he has done, it should come as no surprise to any Russian, what they are voting for after soon 20 years with Putin in power THEY KNOW ALL ABOUT HIM !!
Even when Putin himself was NOT able to run for President back in 2008, and the Russians, had a chance to vote for another direction, what did they do?? They voted in Putin's boy Dmitry Medvedev for president, the Russians had the changes to vote for Boris Nemtsov and therefor freedom, rule of law and democracy but NO THEY VOTE for Putins boy Dmitry Medvedev for president, because that was the next best thing to voting for Putin !!!
So the Russians NO longer have an excuse, they are responsible for the actions that the evil regime they support and they have voted for time after time after time….
The few that is good and it is only a handful at best.... are not worth all the other 99.99999% evil little scummy trolls that comes with the handful of god ones..
THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE LIKE EVIL, THEY LIKE STALIN, THEY LIKE PUTIN AND THAT IS WHAT THEY RESPECT AND LOVE AND THEIR VOTING SHOWS THIS FACT .....
1
-
Appeasement & Armageddon: Giving in to Vladimir Putin’s nuclear blackmail will spark an unprecedented nuclear arms race and make a future nuclear war far more likely!! There is a reason why the Soviet Union, nor any nuclear power, never launched a first strike (nuclear attack) since World War 2, despite all of the Cold War fears that the Soviets would.
And it’s because you can't launch a first strike without being annihilated in the second strike. I remember in the 80s when The Day After aired, and everyone hoped the Soviets would see the movie and learn the lesson. Probably not realizing the Soviets can be trusted to act in the best self-interests...which mutually assured destruction is clearly against... and that the Soviets knew this since the 60s, if not the 50s. -- How is it any different today?
Even if Putin had the launch codes (he doesn't), or the ability to order a first strike by himself (he doesn't), even he would know the response is not going to be 'more sanctions'. -- The only way I could fathom Russia using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, or against any enemy country, is the FSB had a foolproof plan to blame am ISIS terror cell, or rogue Chechen element, or claim the Ukrainians did it in a false-flag conspiracy to frame the Russians. -- But that would require a convincing story on how such an element got the nuclear weapon 'elsewhere', and eliminating everyone involved in the planning and execution. Whatever the case, Russia would need absolute plausible deniability. --
Here's my two cents, if there was really a way to use a nuclear weapon against an enemy without equal repercussions, Russia and China (and the US) would have figured it out a long time ago and did it already.
All NATO must do is take out Moscow and 5 -6 other cities to take out all of Russia.... But Russia must take out city's all over the planet from
USA , CANADA ,FRANCE UK. ALL OF EUROPE and as far away as , AUSTRALIA and so on and so on ...
United Kingdom 225 warheads (submarine delivery systems new and up to date systems )
France 300 warheads
(submarine delivery systems new and up to date systems )
United States 7,315 warheads
(Mixed delivery systems new and up to date systems )
Russia 8,000 warheads
(Mixed delivery systems old mostly from the soviet union times NOT up to date systems )
RUSSIA IS AT DISADVANTAGE !!! and they know it Putin's regime knows its and that is why they will not use nukes they will hint and shout about nukes but that's it !!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1