Nuclear War

[El Cid M]

I have been looking into the claim thrown around by Putin and his supporters in the West that NATO "Promised" not to expand into the former WARSAW Pact countries.

Masha Gessen said in an interview that the Soviets had ask that East Germany not be allowed to join NATO when Germany reunited (which they agreed to allow). The West said that was impossible, but a NATO general proposed that no NATO troops would permanently stationed in East Germany. And this was when the WARSAW Pact still existed. No promise or document was ever made to not allow future membership with NATO. NEVER happened. And the agreement was with the WARSAW Pact, not Russia. When the WARSAW Pact ended, the agreement (which only covered East Germany) ended too.

Putin is the one that has pushed this narrative.

Furthermore, Russia signed the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act which puts no limits ion NATO expansion. Boris Yeltsin signed that act. Putin is the one that created the story about NATO breaking its promise. It is a mystery to me why the Western media has failed to report this fact even though some people have written about this in rebuttal.

[thomasglee]

I have been looking into the claim thrown around by Putin and his supporters in the West that NATO "Promised" not to expand into the former WARSAW Pact countries.

Masha Gessen said in an interview that the Soviets had ask that East Germany not be allowed to join NATO when Germany reunited (which they agreed to allow). The West said that was impossible, but a NATO general proposed that no NATO troops would permanently stationed in East Germany. And this was when the WARSAW Pact still existed. No promise or document was ever made to not allow future membership with NATO. NEVER happened. And the agreement was with the WARSAW Pact, not Russia. When the WARSAW Pact ended, the agreement (which only covered East Germany) ended too.

Putin is the one that has pushed this narrative.

Furthermore, Russia signed the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act which puts no limits ion NATO expansion. Boris Yeltsin signed that act. Putin is the one that created the story about NATO breaking its promise. It is a mystery to me why the Western media has failed to report this fact even though some people have written about this in rebuttal.

It also said that NATO would work with Russia to alleviate concerns and that the permanent stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new members would not take place. NATO was not working with Russia to alleviate concerns and NATO was (is) looking to station permanent combat forces within the territory of new members.

NATO is clearly violating the spirit of the compromise. Perhaps that's why the Western media isn't reporting on the facts of the agreement. It goes against their narrative (and yours apparently).

[John]

** 07-Mar-2022 World View: Nato agreement

> It also said that NATO would work with Russia to alleviate
> concerns and that the permanent stationing of substantial combat
> forces on the territory of new members would not take place. NATO
> was not working with Russia to alleviate concerns and NATO was
> (is) looking to station permanent combat forces within the
> territory of new members.

> NATO is clearly violating the spirit of the compromise. Perhaps
> that's why the Western media isn't reporting on the facts of the
> agreement. It goes against their narrative (and yours
> apparently).

You've gotta be kidding. When Russia illegally invaded Georgia in
2008, Russia clearly violated the Nato agreement, and justified
further defensive measures by Nato. When Russia illegally invaded
Ukraine in 2014, Russia violated the Nato agreement, and justifed a
lot more defensive measures. When Russia illegally invaded Crimea,
and then illegally annexed Crimea, Nato was FULLY justified in all
sorts of defensive measures.

When Russia surrounded Ukraine last year with over 100,000 troops,
further Nato defensive measures were justified.

And now when Russia is conducting massive genocide and war crimes,
bombing and flattening innocent women and children in one village
after another causing enormous suffering, driving millions of refugees
into other countries -- for no discernible reason at all except the
sociopathic genocidal mind of Putin -- then further Nato action is
fully justified.

Those are facts that you ignore, because they go against your
narrative.

[Guest]

I have been looking into the claim thrown around by Putin and his supporters in the West that NATO "Promised" not to expand into the former WARSAW Pact countries.

Masha Gessen said in an interview that the Soviets had ask that East Germany not be allowed to join NATO when Germany reunited (which they agreed to allow). The West said that was impossible, but a NATO general proposed that no NATO troops would permanently stationed in East Germany. And this was when the WARSAW Pact still existed. No promise or document was ever made to not allow future membership with NATO. NEVER happened. And the agreement was with the WARSAW Pact, not Russia. When the WARSAW Pact ended, the agreement (which only covered East Germany) ended too.

Putin is the one that has pushed this narrative.

Furthermore, Russia signed the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act which puts no limits ion NATO expansion. Boris Yeltsin signed that act. Putin is the one that created the story about NATO breaking its promise. It is a mystery to me why the Western media has failed to report this fact even though some people have written about this in rebuttal.

It also said that NATO would work with Russia to alleviate concerns and that the permanent stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new members would not take place. NATO was not working with Russia to alleviate concerns and NATO was (is) looking to station permanent combat forces within the territory of new members.

NATO is clearly violating the spirit of the compromise. Perhaps that's why the Western media isn't reporting on the facts of the agreement. It goes against their narrative (and yours apparently).

I write this without any sarcasm: thomas is immersed in conspiracy theories. I was shocked when he started mentioning con artists like Martin Armstrong (a convicted felon) and most shockingly of all, James Corbett, a total nutter (even providing links) Thomas has always taken strange stances on things, now I know why. Armstrong and Corbett are not good sources of information. I remember coming across these types of people on YT back in 2007, when YT was largely unregulated. Armstrong does makes some good points occasionally, but Corbett is just crazy. I don't think Martin Armstrong actually believes what he says, but I think Corbett does.

[thomasglee]

Furthermore, Russia signed the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act which puts no limits ion NATO expansion. Boris Yeltsin signed that act. Putin is the one that created the story about NATO breaking its promise. It is a mystery to me why the Western media has failed to report this fact even though some people have written about this in rebuttal.

It also said that NATO would work with Russia to alleviate concerns and that the permanent stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new members would not take place. NATO was not working with Russia to alleviate concerns and NATO was (is) looking to station permanent combat forces within the territory of new members.

NATO is clearly violating the spirit of the compromise. Perhaps that's why the Western media isn't reporting on the facts of the agreement. It goes against their narrative (and yours apparently).

I write this without any sarcasm: thomas is immersed in conspiracy theories. I was shocked when he started mentioning con artists like Martin Armstrong (a convicted felon) and most shockingly of all, James Corbett, a total nutter (even providing links) Thomas has always taken strange stances on things, now I know why. Armstrong and Corbett are not good sources of information. I remember coming across these types of people on YT back in 2007, when YT was largely unregulated. Armstrong does makes some good points occasionally, but Corbett is just crazy. I don't think Martin Armstrong actually believes what he says, but I think Corbett does.

It’s a good thing I don’t care what you think.

[Guest]

The West will ban Bitcoin. This will be their excuse. Bitcoin is also undermining the price of gold. I would normally expect gold to sky rocket in this case, but Russia might be forced to dump its gold reserves to pay the light bill. That would probably hurt the price of gold in the short run.

Good luck with that. Another nail in the coffin.

Lawmakers fear cryptocurrencies could be back door for sanctioned rubles

https://rollcall.com/2022/03/08/lawmake ... ed-rubles/

[Guest]

Putin's position in Russia as the master tactician and strategist the West can’t keep up with is slipping by the day. Oligarchs see their wealth threatened. Their lifestyles crushed. Workers are witnessing the rapid destruction of the economy. Russia is diminishing daily. Putin’s biggest threat is from within. If the armed forces and intelligence community see no acceptable end game under Putin the only solution will be his removal. That is the victory economic sanctions may deliver. Every possible action should be taken by the West to bring it about.

[Tom Mazanec]

‘Limited’ Tactical Nuclear Weapons Would Be Catastrophic
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows the limits of nuclear deterrence
March 10, 2022
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... astrophic/

No one knows if using a tactical nuclear weapon would trigger full-scale nuclear war. Nevertheless, the risk of escalation is very real. Those on the receiving end of a nuclear strike are not likely to ask whether it was tactical or strategic. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on February 6, 2018, then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated “I do not think there is any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game changer.” Russian leaders have made clear that they would view any nuclear attack as the start of an all-out nuclear war.

On Top of Everything Else, Nuclear War Would Be a Climate Problem
Even a “minor” skirmish would wreck the planet.
By Robinson Meyer
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... te/627005/

Since Russia invaded Ukraine two weeks ago, that threat has become a lot more real: Many Americans, including artists, climate-concerned progressives, and even a few lawmakers, have come out in support of a “no-fly zone.” But despite its euphemistic name, a no-fly zone means that NATO and the United States issue a credible threat that they will shoot down any enemy plane in Ukrainian territory. This would require U.S. bombing runs into Russian territory to eliminate air defenses, bringing the U.S. and Russia into open war, and it would have a reasonable chance of prompting a nuclear exchange. And it would be worse for the climate than any energy policy that Donald Trump ever proposed.

POLITICS Published 5 hours ago
US drifting toward 'enormous danger of nuclear war', Newt Gingrich says
US facing danger of a 'decisive defeat' of the West, says Gingrich
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/us ... t-gingrich

Well, I mean, first of all, what you have is a secular religion, which people like John Kerry believe in so passionately that they will do virtually anything. So- I mean, why would you take oil from Venezuela, but not from Texas? Why would you take natural gas from Iran, but not from Oklahoma? I mean, there's something so profoundly perverted in the entire thought process of the Biden administration that it doesn't fit any kind of traditional political situation. Second, if you watch Kamala Harris, how could you send her anywhere? I mean, the fact- she is such an example of weakness and ignorance that having her in Poland and Romania weekends, it doesn't strengthen the Western alliance and nobody's coming to grips with the reality of Putin. Putin is engaged in actions that are clearly war crimes, and he is directing them himself. They're getting worse. He's getting bolder as he gets more desperate. And you know, you had Secretary Blinken and doing the right thing the other day saying that, yes, we would help the Poles deliver MiG-29 to Ukraine within a day or two, the Defense Department of the very same administration says, 'No, we can't do that.' Well, I mean, where are we on all this stuff? And frankly, I think we're drifting towards an enormous danger of nuclear war and an enormous danger of a decisive defeat of the West.

I was a nuclear missile operator. There have been more near-misses than the world knows
Cole Smith Thu 10 Mar 2022 06.26 EST
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... orld-knows

On the massive blast door of the launch control center, someone had painted a mural of a Domino’s pizza logo with the macabre caption, “World-wide delivery in 30 minutes or less or your next one is free.”

John Ivison: West can't assume Putin’s 'rationality' will rule out nuclear war over Ukraine
It is up against a desperate man running low on options. In online poker, they call it 'playing the Russian way,' showing strength with any kind of hand, all-in, always
Author of the article:John Ivison
Publishing date:Mar 08, 2022 • 1 day ago • 5 minute read • 436 Comments
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-i ... er-ukraine

The Russian leader’s mood was summed up in testimony to the U.S. House Intelligence committee in Washington on Tuesday. CIA director William J. Burns said Putin is angry and frustrated at having seen his anticipated swift victory in Ukraine become bogged down. In Burns’ estimation, he will double down because the invasion is based on a deep conviction.

[Guest]

It also said that NATO would work with Russia to alleviate concerns and that the permanent stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new members would not take place. NATO was not working with Russia to alleviate concerns and NATO was (is) looking to station permanent combat forces within the territory of new members.

NATO is clearly violating the spirit of the compromise. Perhaps that's why the Western media isn't reporting on the facts of the agreement. It goes against their narrative (and yours apparently).

I write this without any sarcasm: thomas is immersed in conspiracy theories. I was shocked when he started mentioning con artists like Martin Armstrong (a convicted felon) and most shockingly of all, James Corbett, a total nutter (even providing links) Thomas has always taken strange stances on things, now I know why. Armstrong and Corbett are not good sources of information. I remember coming across these types of people on YT back in 2007, when YT was largely unregulated. Armstrong does makes some good points occasionally, but Corbett is just crazy. I don't think Martin Armstrong actually believes what he says, but I think Corbett does.

It’s a good thing I don’t care what you think.

It's a good thing that so few take you seriously.

[thomasglee]

I write this without any sarcasm: thomas is immersed in conspiracy theories. I was shocked when he started mentioning con artists like Martin Armstrong (a convicted felon) and most shockingly of all, James Corbett, a total nutter (even providing links) Thomas has always taken strange stances on things, now I know why. Armstrong and Corbett are not good sources of information. I remember coming across these types of people on YT back in 2007, when YT was largely unregulated. Armstrong does makes some good points occasionally, but Corbett is just crazy. I don't think Martin Armstrong actually believes what he says, but I think Corbett does.

It’s a good thing I don’t care what you think.

It's a good thing that so few take you seriously.

Once again, I don't care. It's not my fault you can't see the forest for the trees. Nobody takes you seriously either, so we are in good company. I suppose.