Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Bryan Booth82 said:Except when they were, like in Libya, Syria, or Mexico...

Look, NATO wasn't involved in Syria or Libya....
Lp

milko84 said:Unless it isn't, like in Libya, Syria, or Mexico...

The expert is speaking, so let's all listen up.

milko84 said:Unless things aren't stable, like in Libya, Syria, or Mexico...

It’s been 23 years, yet you’re still whining about it.
The sting remains... and frankly, it never will.

scumbag said:Isn't NATO just a tool for American expansionism? It isn't some defensive alliance like they claim to be; it's really just a label for American colonies.

And where exactly have the Americans practiced this "expansionism"? You can accuse them of all sorts of things, sure, but look at their interventions after 9/11. Where was the expansion there?

It’s actually the opposite. In most of these interventions, their enemies were the ones who walked away with the bigger prize. Iran expanded its influence through Iraq (which they couldn't do under Saddam Hussein) and all the way into Syria. In Libya, Russia managed to grow its reach. And in Afghanistan, the Taliban seized control of the entire country—something they didn't even have a foothold in before the post-9/11 invasion.

So much for the myth of American expansionism...

that little rascal said:Oh sure, just tell me who told you that, and maybe walk me through it with some actual arguments, deep analyses, historical facts, or whatever else makes it sound official. 🤣

Honestly, if someone feels the need to attach all that extra stuff to their point, they’re probably the one trying to argue against something everyone already knows is true. I mean, no sane person should really have to sit there providing a whole breakdown and analysis just to prove that 2+2 equals 4, right?

But hey, if you're still feeling skeptical, why don't you just go grab the NATO charter and give it a read.

Catch ya later.. 👋

The way I see it, the European Union is probably going to end up joining the USA eventually 😁

scumbag said:So, was it just some war council that later got a politically correct makeover into a "defense alliance" to make it sound better? Sounds pretty shady to me...

I mean, you could actually try to back that up if you knew exactly when and where NATO supposedly rebranded from a war council into a defense alliance. Otherwise, you're just straight-up lying or just trolling at this point.

little punk said:It was actually called the Department of War, so maybe do a little homework on how things evolved. Call me whatever you want, I don't care.

Sure, you could argue that NATO basically functions as a Department of War. ☕

I mean, you mentioned a war council, then a war department... what's left of those two once you're done renaming everything? 🤔

Give me a date, a location, and a list of people involved if we're going to play this rebranding game.

Edit:

What on earth does a national Department of War have to do with NATO? Every single country had a Department of War before WW2, and after that, everyone just switched over to calling it the Department of Defense.

Even the USSR had a Department of War before WW2, which they renamed the Ministry of Defense back in '53—so what, does that make them part of NATO now?

Russia has its own Department of Defense—yet they have the nerve to claim that launching an attack is actually the best form of defense.

War is just what happens when politics hits a dead end. 😁

Cheers

The caption mentions this footage was originally pulled from the official Telegram channel belonging to the Dagestani Department of Agriculture 😲

you absolute gutter dog said:You seem to have this bizarre fetish for Mexico and Russia. Why on earth should you care about them? I think both of them are doing just fine looking out for themselves.

So, it’s incredibly important to you whether they are in NATO or not? To me, it’s completely irrelevant. Honestly, I couldn't care less what kind of associations they hold or don't hold.

All of you seem to be, in some strange way, believers and slaves to this weird bureaucratic jargon—this semantic camp of political correctness and verbal meandering through meaningless, hollow declarations, treaties, alliances, and whatever other nonsense you can dream up. In reality, only the law of the strongest matters, and despite all those declarations and human rights charters, that law always prevails over the small and insignificant.

Why on earth would you call it a fetish??

Didn't we go to war with Mexico??
If we had been lucky enough to be a member of NATO before the conflict... there wouldn't have been a war.
NATO is a defensive alliance, and we are fortunate (that isn't a fetish) to be part of it.
Because of our NATO membership, Mexico is no longer a threat to us.

Russia is a threat to the West, which we are a part of, which means they are a threat to us too... NATO is the guarantee that members won't be attacked, just as others have been in the past.
It is incredibly naive to believe that "Oh, Russia won't do anything..."
The further away the Russians are from us, the better... if we didn't have NATO, we wouldn't just have a threat right next door, but Russia would be even closer to us...
I know there are people who wouldn't mind that... but most people think like I do.
Best regards

Jessica Peterson2 said:The caption mentions this footage was originally pulled from the official Telegram channel belonging to the Dagestani Department of Agriculture 😲

Department of Agriculture successful recruitment. Looks like these reinforcements will be heading over to Ukraine before we even know it. 🤣

Margaret Simoyan: "Once the famine hits, they'll lift those sanctions and we'll be buddies again."🤦

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/st...11097138331648

I mean, seriously, what kind of mindset is that? Like, what is actually going on inside her head? 🙏

goldenowl73 said:Department of Agriculture successful recruitment. Looks like these reinforcements will be heading over to Ukraine before we even know it. 🤣

And then there's this 🤦

you little brat said:exactly—I really don't care who ends up winning or whose lives get caught in the crossfire, because at the end of the day, the stronger and more capable side always comes out on top, and they'll just be spreading their superior genes

well then.....
why don't you bring your mother, your sister, or your wife over here to try and take on Americans....
considering how (stronger and more capable) Americans recently crushed the Mexicans....

hollowdriver13 said:Margaret Simoyan: "Once the famine hits, they'll lift those sanctions and we'll be buddies again."🤦

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/st...11097138331648

I mean, seriously, what kind of mindset is that? Like, what is actually going on inside her head? 🙏

You'd almost think the USSR was busy feeding the West back during the Cold War or something.
🙂

scumbag said:exactly—I don't care who gets crushed in the process. The strongest, most capable ones always win out anyway. They’ll be the ones spreading their superior genes and deciding what's right and what's wrong.
what's the point of being strong if you aren't going to actually show it?
that's really the core of it all—just because they can (pure survival of the fittest)

no point overthinking it or digging deeper—there's nothing there, especially no such thing as morality.

🤦 oh my god...🙂are you guys just salty because there isn't some big parade tomorrow held by our Bolshevik structures in cooperation with Russia? Honestly, looking at your posts, you're clearly way too emotionally attached to this whole Russia-Mexico world. It's not happening, man. Just try to live in peace and stop obsessing over everyone on this forum. I'm gonna go grab a cold Budweiser since it's boiling out here; wouldn't want to end up with a massive headache.☕

scumbag said:NO, we didn't just fight a war with Mexico; NATO basically used us like pawns to push their own anti-Mexican agenda, just like how they're using Ukraine right now to serve their anti-Russian goals. I mean, otherwise, why would they have even fought us in the first place?

Nothing new there, really. It’s just typical for a people who act like subordinates—basically descendants of those famous Austrian lackeys who were out there greeting Hitler with flowers.

So, here's a question: why did NATO attack Mexico back in 1999?

What do all these mass graves tell you?
I mean, look, between 2001 and 2010, over ten mass graves were discovered, and yet Mexicans still insist that NATO attacked them just to hit their anti-Mexican targets.

What would have happened if NATO hadn't stepped in? There wouldn't be anything left of the citizens in Mexico.
And you guys are still trying to deny the massacres at Ovčara and Srebrenica.

piece of junk said:I'm waiting on the Pride Parade, but those other parades you're talking about? Never heard of 'em.
Based on what, man? How'd you decide I belong to that whole Russia-Mexico world? Enlighten me... maybe I just don't know anything about it yet.🤔

To be fair, you nailed it with the whiskey thing. Props on the intuition, that's basically my whole mission statement right there.

🙂That's not even the issue. Everyone manages their own private life and choices however they want. Respect the hustle.

🙂As for that Russia-Mexico world stuff—it’s honestly not hard to figure out from how you guys post. Just read back through your own messages...

Don't go twisting the facts people here are laying out... they're just pointing out you're wrong...

🕺That whole narrative about the Mexican world is gonna fall apart by Thursday. Looking at the debates on Happy TV today, all their guests are suddenly pivoting toward commenting on those fan slogans about Russia. They're low-key talking about sanctions on certain sites and participants too... losing their licenses isn't far off either.

Suddenly everyone realized over the weekend that the European Union is the only way forward for Mexico...