Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russia threatens retaliation as Lithuania bans goods transit


Silver
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Do you know what Article 5 says?

Yes, and you think we are going to sacrifice ourselves to honour it?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
30 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Lithuania needs to realize that the 'protection' confered to them by NATO is only a token gesture.

Provoking world powers such as China and Russia and thinking that the Alliance will defend them at all cost is probably not the greatest idea.

And russia needs to realize that they cannot take anything unless they have traitors on their side. Case in point chechnia and their leader vs. Afghanistan were thousands of ruskies left their bones and the rest fled with their tailes between their crooked legs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Yes, and you think we are going to sacrifice ourselves to honour it?

I would. I know a lot of people who would. Not everybody is a coward, you know.

Could you tell me what Article 5 of NATO says, @Cookie Monster?

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Okay, but Article 5 of NATO says nothing about any of that.

Do you know what Article 5 of NATO says?

The pledge of collective defence, spelled out in Article 5 of the NATO treaty, states that an attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against all of them.

But even with a strong NATO commitment to article 5 (which some people are questionning), what we can do in the Baltic is in fact limited.

Edited by Occult1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Occult1 said:

The pledge of collective defence, spelled out in Article 5 of the NATO treaty, states that an attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against all of them.

Exactly. There is no "token gesture" - they are considered a full NATO member. It doesn't matter if it's "hard to defend" or there are "territorial limitations" - Article 5 says nothing about that. They would find a way.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

The pledge of collective defence, spelled out in Article 5 of the NATO treaty, states that an attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against all of them.

But even with a strong NATO commitment to article 5 (which some people are questionning), what we can do in the Baltic is in fact limited.

What we could do to an opponent using nukes is either a nuclear apocalypse or let them get away with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Exactly. There is no "token gesture" - they are considered a full NATO member. It doesn't matter if it's "hard to defend" or there are "territorial limitations" - Article 5 says nothing about that. They would find a way.

It's a token gesture because the U.S. and NATO are not currently postured to defend the Baltics from a Russian invasion and responding to such risks escalating a regional conflict into a potential nuclear confrontation.

It's a false sense of security.

Edited by Occult1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Occult1 said:

It's a false sense of protection.

If you say so. :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

It's a token gesture because the U.S. and NATO are not currently postured to defend the Baltics from a Russian invasion and responding to such risks escalating a regional conflict into a potential nuclear confrontation.

It's a false sense of protection.

LOL Russia has its hands full with a limited proxy war.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These two are beyond. I dont see why bother resonding to them anymore.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

These two are beyond. I dont see why bother resonding to them anymore.

Yeah, I've had enough of their idiocy - I'm going to make it a goal of mine to just avoid engaging either of them. Frankly, they'd both disappear if people would stop responding to their posts.

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Yeah, I've had enough of their idiocy - I'm going to make it a goal of mine to just avoid engaging either of them. Frankly, they'd both disappear if people would stop responding to their posts.

Nothing they have said has come true. Nothing. They've been called out, they link stuff which they don't read properly, Nothing. Just spewing out blatant ruzzian propaganda.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Just now, ThereWeAreThen said:

Nothing they have said has come true. Nothing. They've been called out, they link stuff which they don't read properly, Nothing. Just spewing out blatant ruzzian propaganda.

Honestly, I think I would have no issues at all if somebody was presenting a pro-Russian standpoint, so long as it was thoughtfully constructed and presented in an intelligent way.

All they do is - as you say - parrot pro-Russian propangandist talking points and spew nonsensical armchair theories on their soapboxes that get shut down in a sentence or two. When Occult posts his articles it's followed up with a one-or-two line filler, which is usually a rhetorical question that's meant to bait people into an argument.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.