War in Ukraine

#52,327
#52,327
Rasputin_Vol said:
And again, it is irresponsible for NATO to allow them to join. To be clear, this isn't about the sovereignty of Ukraine or Sweden. They can have the desire to join NATO or any other organization. But if NATO was really about bringing peace and stability, they would not allow them to join because it is an escalatory move.
Click to expand...
How is it escalatory? Russia shouldnt care. It literally doesnt effect them at all.

When was the last time Russia fought a NATO nation? They should love that more nations are joining the pact that has kept Russia safe for more than 70 years.

You entire argument relies on a reality that doesnt exist, and hasnt existed for more than 70 years.

NATO has had plenty of chances to attack Russia if it wanted. Never once taken them. Shortly after WW2. From the 80s through the 90s with all the instability as the iron curtain fell. Heck Russia tried to join NATO in 2002. How is it ejaculatory if Russia wanted to do it? Another item you will never address and just attempt deflection and straw men.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, AM64, Hunerwadel and 2 others
#52,329
#52,329
LouderVol said:
How is it escalatory? Russia shouldnt care. It literally doesnt effect them at all.

When was the last time Russia fought a NATO nation? They should love that more nations are joining the pact that has kept Russia safe for more than 70 years.

You entire argument relies on a reality that doesnt exist, and hasnt existed for more than 70 years.

NATO has had plenty of chances to attack Russia if it wanted. Never once taken them. Shortly after WW2. From the 80s through the 90s with all the instability as the iron curtain fell. Heck Russia tried to join NATO in 2002. How is it ejaculatory if Russia wanted to do it? Another item you will never address and just attempt deflection and straw men.
Click to expand...
An extremely excellent point Louder.
 
#52,331
#52,331
hog88 said:
Still I think there is no way it would stand a legal battle plus just how many shippers or insurers affected by this fall under US jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
It's a multi-national agreement.

It may or may not have much impact, but I don't fault them for trying.

1670258047889.png
 
#52,335
#52,335
Rasputin_Vol said:
Based on what? How can you say that right now when the Russians by themselves are fighting NATO and still have gained about 25% of Ukraine and winning on the battlefield and economically. You sound ridiculous. In no other universe is a fighter going against an entire collection of fighters a loser if they are gaining territory and maintaining a booming economy.

Tell me about all of these stories you are seeing right now about concerns about NATO weapons' stockpiles. Tell me how the European energy situation is right now.

You people are ******* delusional.
Click to expand...
Lol. Fighting Ukrainians armed by NATO is not fighting NATO.

Or at least if you apply that argument the US wasnt fighting Afghani's, they were fighting the Russians. Just like we fought the Russians in Desert Storm and rick rolled them back to the 1960s where their tactics and equipment belong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, AM64, Hunerwadel and 2 others
#52,337
#52,337
NorthDallas40 said:
I have no idea what these countries expect to gain by making this toothless decree
Click to expand...
Apparently the belief is that because the west insures these shipments that many OPEC nations wont do shipments if they cant get the insurance they are used to.

I doubt it really changes anything, but that was the only explanation I could find.
 
#52,340
#52,340
LouderVol said:
Apparently the belief is that because the west insures these shipments that many OPEC nations wont do shipments if they cant get the insurance they are used to.

I doubt it really changes anything, but that was the only explanation I could find.
Click to expand...
Would you send a $100+ million shipment on the open seas without insurance?
 
#52,343
#52,343
Rasputin_Vol said:
Based on what? How can you say that right now when the Russians by themselves are fighting NATO and still have gained about 25% of Ukraine and winning on the battlefield and economically. You sound ridiculous. In no other universe is a fighter going against an entire collection of fighters a loser if they are gaining territory and maintaining a booming economy.

Tell me about all of these stories you are seeing right now about concerns about NATO weapons' stockpiles. Tell me how the European energy situation is right now.

You people are ******* delusional.
Click to expand...

Geezus.

Imagine American's being proud of the U.S. military prowess after 10 months and only conquering 25% of Nebraska.

@Rasputin_Vol is like a Great Value Baghdad Bob.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, AM64, evillawyer and 3 others
#52,347
#52,347
LouderVol said:
Apparently the belief is that because the west insures these shipments that many OPEC nations wont do shipments if they cant get the insurance they are used to.

I doubt it really changes anything, but that was the only explanation I could find.
Click to expand...
But apparently it just caps the insured amount at $60 a barrel. So Russia just self insures the rest and writes that in the contract. Seems like much ado about nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top