Ukrainian victory over Russia is inevitable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While our trolls talk about imaginings of "tapping out" Ukraine continues to advance, destroy Russian equipment, and reclaim their land from the Russian invaders.

Ignore the Russian trolls. Putin’s bloodthirsty invasion of Ukraine will never be accepted by Freedom loving people of the world. Ukraine is fighting for our values.

Slava Ukraine! Slava Biden! Slava Freedom!

Naaah. Ukraine is justly fighting to repel an invasion. NATO and European nations are quite capable of fighting for themselves, thank you very much. If it was as you said, no one would rely on Ukraine to defend them. They would do it themselves and it would be over in an instant.

You would make Neville Chamberlain proud. “Peace in our time” yes?

Do you think Putin will stop at Ukraine? Emboldened by MAGA and MAGA-adjacent allies in Europe, Putin is seeking to recreate the Russian Empire.

Ever hear of the Domino Effect?

Ukraine is the tip of the spear defending Democracy from tyranny.

Putin isn’t going to war with NATO. Stop the fear mongering.
We once used the phrase domino effect. Bit us in the ass.
Ukraine is the tip of its own spear, as it should be. They’ve done an admirable job too. But no one is trusting their security to Ukraine, otherwise we’d already be at war.
Your hyperbole is way over the top.

In point of fact, the immediate demand before attacking Ukraine was that NATO retreat from Eastern European countries and permanently block Ukraine from joining NATO. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/politics/russia-demands-us-ukraine.html

Yes this is 100% about NATO

Perhaps you should ask if NATO is actually beneficial at this point. If the whole purpose of NATO is to oppose Russia, and NATO expands to Russia's borders, then we create a recipe for conflict. NATO's existence after the end of the Cold War has been a mistake.

The worst part is that NATO is fundamentally unfit for fighting Russia. Too many decades playing in the desert and shipping off its industrial base will do that. NATO is careening towards a conflict that could end the American Empire and NATO in one collosal blunder.

NATO exists to collectively defend its members. It’s done this well. There’s no reason to question the organization because it refuses to involve itself in a war outside of its treaty requirements.

I struggle to think of an example when NATO has collectively defended its member. Not a fake threat across the ocean for its own political gains, but an actual threat to its member.

They haven't had to. That is the whole point.

Do people really not know any history? Article 5 - the mutual self-defense article of the NATO treaty has been invoked only once - after 9/11, in order to come to the mutual defense of the United States.

NATO members committed to do 8 specific things at the request of the United States - things like intelligence sharing, increasing security at US facilities on Allied territory, providing overflight clearance for terrorism operations, etc, and agreed to be ready to deploy NATO Airborne Early Warning Systems and naval forces.

More here - https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s011004b.htm

FWIW, NATO has also played a critical role in the Balkans, by providing support to the SFOR peacekeeping post-Dayton Peace Accords, and ending the war in Kosovo and providing troops for the KFOR peacekeeping mission.

Even today, as extreme nationalist Serb forces tied to Vucic (formerly a Milosevic protege and current President of Serbia) attack Kosovar police forces in northern Kosovo in an attempt to increase broader conflict, NATO has stepped in with additional British NATO forces to keep the peace.

The involvement of NATO in peacekeeping forces[b] in the Balkans was seen at the time as a kind of defense of Europe since fighting spread over time and created huge, destabilizing refugee flows into the rest of Europe.

It's unbelievable and horrifying to me that so many people seem largely unaware of the benefits of NATO. (Not to mention such factually incorrect history on the creation and evolution of NATO until today.

🤯

You know perfectly well what happened after 9/11 wasn't about protecting the United States. Bush wanted to invade something, and NATO made it happen and look kosher.

DP

No we don’t know that and you mischaracterized NATO’s involvement.


[b]Has NATO ever started a war? - History Stack Exchange

NATO's operations were focussed on anti-terror and enforce blockades or no-fly zones on specific nations and providing humanitarian assistance. The operations were responses to actions by other nations but not started by NATO itself therefore NATO hasn't started any wars.Mar 1, 2022
https://history.stackexchange.com › ...


What was the role of NATO in the Iraq war?

The March 2003 campaign against Iraq was conducted by a coalition of forces from different countries, some of which were NATO member countries and some were not. NATO as an organization had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign or to conduct it.May 19, 2022

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_51977.htm#:~:text=The%20March%202003%20campaign%20against,campaign%20or%20to%20conduct%20it.


From 2004 to 2011, NATO conducted a relatively small but important support operation in Iraq that consisted of training, mentoring and assisting the Iraqi security forces.May 24, 2023
https://www.nato.int › topics_166936
Topic: NATO Mission Iraq


NATO and Afghanistan

For nearly 20 years, NATO Allies and partner countries had military forces deployed to Afghanistan under a United Nations (UN) Security Council mandate. NATO Allies went into Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, to ensure that the country would not again become a safe haven for international terrorists to attack NATO member countries. Over the last two decades, there have been no terrorist attacks on Allied soil from Afghanistan.

In February 2020, the United States and the Taliban signed an agreement on the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan by May 2021. In April 2021, NATO Foreign and Defence ministers decided to withdraw all Allied troops from Afghanistan within a few months.

In summer 2021, following the collapse of the Afghan government and the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces, NATO focused on ensuring the safe departure of personnel from Allied and partner countries, and NATO-affiliated Afghans. In August 2021, more than 120,000 people were evacuated in the Allied airlift from Kabul airport as part of the coalition effort – including around 2,000 Afghans working for NATO, and their families. Many of them have already been resettled in Allied and partner countries. For several others, NATO is working with Allies to provide housing, care and support while arrangements are made for follow-on movement to Allied and partner countries. 


https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm

LOL by all means, let NATO tell its own story, it's not like they are biased at all.

There is a reason why European countries that formerly sought be neutral between EU/West and Russia have clamored to join NATO since this illegal Ukraine War. People have realized Russia is actually a grave threat to Western democracy and the rule of law.

But by all means continue to espouse Putin’s lies and misrepresentations about the clearly Necessary defense alliance.

NP. NATO is necessary to defend Europe. No one with any credibility argues otherwise.
Not sure why we are talking about this on a thread about Ukraine and Russia though.

You lack credibility to contend that Ukraine and Russia can be discussed without discussing NATO and Europe. Clue/ this is how Putin justifies his illegal war.

Lol. The war is between Ukraine and Russia. Should we provide weapons to Ukraine? Most definitely but NATO is not at war, nor anywhere close to going to war. NATO is quite capable of defending itself.
How ever Putin wants to justify his illegal war is his business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While our trolls talk about imaginings of "tapping out" Ukraine continues to advance, destroy Russian equipment, and reclaim their land from the Russian invaders.

Ignore the Russian trolls. Putin’s bloodthirsty invasion of Ukraine will never be accepted by Freedom loving people of the world. Ukraine is fighting for our values.

Slava Ukraine! Slava Biden! Slava Freedom!

Naaah. Ukraine is justly fighting to repel an invasion. NATO and European nations are quite capable of fighting for themselves, thank you very much. If it was as you said, no one would rely on Ukraine to defend them. They would do it themselves and it would be over in an instant.

You would make Neville Chamberlain proud. “Peace in our time” yes?

Do you think Putin will stop at Ukraine? Emboldened by MAGA and MAGA-adjacent allies in Europe, Putin is seeking to recreate the Russian Empire.

Ever hear of the Domino Effect?

Ukraine is the tip of the spear defending Democracy from tyranny.

Putin isn’t going to war with NATO. Stop the fear mongering.
We once used the phrase domino effect. Bit us in the ass.
Ukraine is the tip of its own spear, as it should be. They’ve done an admirable job too. But no one is trusting their security to Ukraine, otherwise we’d already be at war.
Your hyperbole is way over the top.

In point of fact, the immediate demand before attacking Ukraine was that NATO retreat from Eastern European countries and permanently block Ukraine from joining NATO. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/politics/russia-demands-us-ukraine.html

Yes this is 100% about NATO

Perhaps you should ask if NATO is actually beneficial at this point. If the whole purpose of NATO is to oppose Russia, and NATO expands to Russia's borders, then we create a recipe for conflict. NATO's existence after the end of the Cold War has been a mistake.

The worst part is that NATO is fundamentally unfit for fighting Russia. Too many decades playing in the desert and shipping off its industrial base will do that. NATO is careening towards a conflict that could end the American Empire and NATO in one collosal blunder.

NATO exists to collectively defend its members. It’s done this well. There’s no reason to question the organization because it refuses to involve itself in a war outside of its treaty requirements.

I struggle to think of an example when NATO has collectively defended its member. Not a fake threat across the ocean for its own political gains, but an actual threat to its member.

They haven't had to. That is the whole point.

Do people really not know any history? Article 5 - the mutual self-defense article of the NATO treaty has been invoked only once - after 9/11, in order to come to the mutual defense of the United States.

NATO members committed to do 8 specific things at the request of the United States - things like intelligence sharing, increasing security at US facilities on Allied territory, providing overflight clearance for terrorism operations, etc, and agreed to be ready to deploy NATO Airborne Early Warning Systems and naval forces.

More here - https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s011004b.htm

FWIW, NATO has also played a critical role in the Balkans, by providing support to the SFOR peacekeeping post-Dayton Peace Accords, and ending the war in Kosovo and providing troops for the KFOR peacekeeping mission.

Even today, as extreme nationalist Serb forces tied to Vucic (formerly a Milosevic protege and current President of Serbia) attack Kosovar police forces in northern Kosovo in an attempt to increase broader conflict, NATO has stepped in with additional British NATO forces to keep the peace.

The involvement of NATO in peacekeeping forces[b] in the Balkans was seen at the time as a kind of defense of Europe since fighting spread over time and created huge, destabilizing refugee flows into the rest of Europe.

It's unbelievable and horrifying to me that so many people seem largely unaware of the benefits of NATO. (Not to mention such factually incorrect history on the creation and evolution of NATO until today.

🤯

You know perfectly well what happened after 9/11 wasn't about protecting the United States. Bush wanted to invade something, and NATO made it happen and look kosher.

DP

No we don’t know that and you mischaracterized NATO’s involvement.


[b]Has NATO ever started a war? - History Stack Exchange

NATO's operations were focussed on anti-terror and enforce blockades or no-fly zones on specific nations and providing humanitarian assistance. The operations were responses to actions by other nations but not started by NATO itself therefore NATO hasn't started any wars.Mar 1, 2022
https://history.stackexchange.com › ...


What was the role of NATO in the Iraq war?

The March 2003 campaign against Iraq was conducted by a coalition of forces from different countries, some of which were NATO member countries and some were not. NATO as an organization had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign or to conduct it.May 19, 2022

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_51977.htm#:~:text=The%20March%202003%20campaign%20against,campaign%20or%20to%20conduct%20it.


From 2004 to 2011, NATO conducted a relatively small but important support operation in Iraq that consisted of training, mentoring and assisting the Iraqi security forces.May 24, 2023
https://www.nato.int › topics_166936
Topic: NATO Mission Iraq


NATO and Afghanistan

For nearly 20 years, NATO Allies and partner countries had military forces deployed to Afghanistan under a United Nations (UN) Security Council mandate. NATO Allies went into Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, to ensure that the country would not again become a safe haven for international terrorists to attack NATO member countries. Over the last two decades, there have been no terrorist attacks on Allied soil from Afghanistan.

In February 2020, the United States and the Taliban signed an agreement on the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan by May 2021. In April 2021, NATO Foreign and Defence ministers decided to withdraw all Allied troops from Afghanistan within a few months.

In summer 2021, following the collapse of the Afghan government and the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces, NATO focused on ensuring the safe departure of personnel from Allied and partner countries, and NATO-affiliated Afghans. In August 2021, more than 120,000 people were evacuated in the Allied airlift from Kabul airport as part of the coalition effort – including around 2,000 Afghans working for NATO, and their families. Many of them have already been resettled in Allied and partner countries. For several others, NATO is working with Allies to provide housing, care and support while arrangements are made for follow-on movement to Allied and partner countries. 


https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm

LOL by all means, let NATO tell its own story, it's not like they are biased at all.

There is a reason why European countries that formerly sought be neutral between EU/West and Russia have clamored to join NATO since this illegal Ukraine War. People have realized Russia is actually a grave threat to Western democracy and the rule of law.

But by all means continue to espouse Putin’s lies and misrepresentations about the clearly Necessary defense alliance.

The rule of law has never meant anything to any country that wants to do something and has the means to do it. That includes every NATO member country. Stop saying "the rule of law" like it means anything.

Please link to any credible source that believes that Putin’s illegal war and other illegal annexations of foreign territories were legal.

Anything can be made legal as long as the right people want it done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to Ukraine:

Here's a leak of AFU losses in September:


That is in no way sustainable and Western donors can't replace losses at that rate.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/04/europe/uk-nato-ukraine-war-ammunition-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

Russia, meanwhile smells the weakness and has started talking more and more about occupying Odessa and other "historical" parts of Russia.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not a "leak" - it's made-up Russian propaganda. Sorry but the giveaway was "Zaporozhye" - Ukraine would not write it that way.

I'll gladly take a more acceptable source for Ukrainian losses. What do you prefer?

[Anonymous]

Keep funding ukraine, but not too much

i.e. follow biden's formula.

he's correctly managing this conflict on a three pronged basis.

1. Russian Strategic Defeat (check)

2. Manage escalalation risk (check)

3. Ukraine territorial integrity (negotiable).

if you push too much, you don't want rash escalation

keeping this at a nice simmer ensures strategic defeat of russia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to Ukraine:

Here's a leak of AFU losses in September:


That is in no way sustainable and Western donors can't replace losses at that rate.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/04/europe/uk-nato-ukraine-war-ammunition-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

Russia, meanwhile smells the weakness and has started talking more and more about occupying Odessa and other "historical" parts of Russia.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not a "leak" - it's made-up Russian propaganda. Sorry but the giveaway was "Zaporozhye" - Ukraine would not write it that way.

I'll gladly take a more acceptable source for Ukrainian losses. What do you prefer?

Why don't you get into how they plan to get to Odessa. They saved up their gas money this time? They're going to risk their ships in a landing instead of hiding them on the far side of the Black Sea? How is this going to work exactly?

[Anonymous]

as long as the ukrainians are willing, there is no downside to keeping up funding.

that doesn't mean giving them everything they want.

but just enough that they keep being in the field for a decade or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While our trolls talk about imaginings of "tapping out" Ukraine continues to advance, destroy Russian equipment, and reclaim their land from the Russian invaders.

Ignore the Russian trolls. Putin’s bloodthirsty invasion of Ukraine will never be accepted by Freedom loving people of the world. Ukraine is fighting for our values.

Slava Ukraine! Slava Biden! Slava Freedom!

Naaah. Ukraine is justly fighting to repel an invasion. NATO and European nations are quite capable of fighting for themselves, thank you very much. If it was as you said, no one would rely on Ukraine to defend them. They would do it themselves and it would be over in an instant.

You would make Neville Chamberlain proud. “Peace in our time” yes?

Do you think Putin will stop at Ukraine? Emboldened by MAGA and MAGA-adjacent allies in Europe, Putin is seeking to recreate the Russian Empire.

Ever hear of the Domino Effect?

Ukraine is the tip of the spear defending Democracy from tyranny.

Putin isn’t going to war with NATO. Stop the fear mongering.
We once used the phrase domino effect. Bit us in the ass.
Ukraine is the tip of its own spear, as it should be. They’ve done an admirable job too. But no one is trusting their security to Ukraine, otherwise we’d already be at war.
Your hyperbole is way over the top.

In point of fact, the immediate demand before attacking Ukraine was that NATO retreat from Eastern European countries and permanently block Ukraine from joining NATO. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/politics/russia-demands-us-ukraine.html

Yes this is 100% about NATO

Perhaps you should ask if NATO is actually beneficial at this point. If the whole purpose of NATO is to oppose Russia, and NATO expands to Russia's borders, then we create a recipe for conflict. NATO's existence after the end of the Cold War has been a mistake.

The worst part is that NATO is fundamentally unfit for fighting Russia. Too many decades playing in the desert and shipping off its industrial base will do that. NATO is careening towards a conflict that could end the American Empire and NATO in one collosal blunder.

NATO exists to collectively defend its members. It’s done this well. There’s no reason to question the organization because it refuses to involve itself in a war outside of its treaty requirements.

I struggle to think of an example when NATO has collectively defended its member. Not a fake threat across the ocean for its own political gains, but an actual threat to its member.

They haven't had to. That is the whole point.

Do people really not know any history? Article 5 - the mutual self-defense article of the NATO treaty has been invoked only once - after 9/11, in order to come to the mutual defense of the United States.

NATO members committed to do 8 specific things at the request of the United States - things like intelligence sharing, increasing security at US facilities on Allied territory, providing overflight clearance for terrorism operations, etc, and agreed to be ready to deploy NATO Airborne Early Warning Systems and naval forces.

More here - https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s011004b.htm

FWIW, NATO has also played a critical role in the Balkans, by providing support to the SFOR peacekeeping post-Dayton Peace Accords, and ending the war in Kosovo and providing troops for the KFOR peacekeeping mission.

Even today, as extreme nationalist Serb forces tied to Vucic (formerly a Milosevic protege and current President of Serbia) attack Kosovar police forces in northern Kosovo in an attempt to increase broader conflict, NATO has stepped in with additional British NATO forces to keep the peace.

The involvement of NATO in peacekeeping forces[b] in the Balkans was seen at the time as a kind of defense of Europe since fighting spread over time and created huge, destabilizing refugee flows into the rest of Europe.

It's unbelievable and horrifying to me that so many people seem largely unaware of the benefits of NATO. (Not to mention such factually incorrect history on the creation and evolution of NATO until today.

🤯

You know perfectly well what happened after 9/11 wasn't about protecting the United States. Bush wanted to invade something, and NATO made it happen and look kosher.

DP

No we don’t know that and you mischaracterized NATO’s involvement.


[b]Has NATO ever started a war? - History Stack Exchange

NATO's operations were focussed on anti-terror and enforce blockades or no-fly zones on specific nations and providing humanitarian assistance. The operations were responses to actions by other nations but not started by NATO itself therefore NATO hasn't started any wars.Mar 1, 2022
https://history.stackexchange.com › ...


What was the role of NATO in the Iraq war?

The March 2003 campaign against Iraq was conducted by a coalition of forces from different countries, some of which were NATO member countries and some were not. NATO as an organization had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign or to conduct it.May 19, 2022

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_51977.htm#:~:text=The%20March%202003%20campaign%20against,campaign%20or%20to%20conduct%20it.


From 2004 to 2011, NATO conducted a relatively small but important support operation in Iraq that consisted of training, mentoring and assisting the Iraqi security forces.May 24, 2023
https://www.nato.int › topics_166936
Topic: NATO Mission Iraq


NATO and Afghanistan

For nearly 20 years, NATO Allies and partner countries had military forces deployed to Afghanistan under a United Nations (UN) Security Council mandate. NATO Allies went into Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, to ensure that the country would not again become a safe haven for international terrorists to attack NATO member countries. Over the last two decades, there have been no terrorist attacks on Allied soil from Afghanistan.

In February 2020, the United States and the Taliban signed an agreement on the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan by May 2021. In April 2021, NATO Foreign and Defence ministers decided to withdraw all Allied troops from Afghanistan within a few months.

In summer 2021, following the collapse of the Afghan government and the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces, NATO focused on ensuring the safe departure of personnel from Allied and partner countries, and NATO-affiliated Afghans. In August 2021, more than 120,000 people were evacuated in the Allied airlift from Kabul airport as part of the coalition effort – including around 2,000 Afghans working for NATO, and their families. Many of them have already been resettled in Allied and partner countries. For several others, NATO is working with Allies to provide housing, care and support while arrangements are made for follow-on movement to Allied and partner countries. 


https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm

LOL by all means, let NATO tell its own story, it's not like they are biased at all.

There is a reason why European countries that formerly sought be neutral between EU/West and Russia have clamored to join NATO since this illegal Ukraine War. People have realized Russia is actually a grave threat to Western democracy and the rule of law.

But by all means continue to espouse Putin’s lies and misrepresentations about the clearly Necessary defense alliance.

NP. NATO is necessary to defend Europe. No one with any credibility argues otherwise.
Not sure why we are talking about this on a thread about Ukraine and Russia though.

You lack credibility to contend that Ukraine and Russia can be discussed without discussing NATO and Europe. Clue/ this is how Putin justifies his illegal war.

Lol. The war is between Ukraine and Russia. Should we provide weapons to Ukraine? Most definitely but NATO is not at war, nor anywhere close to going to war. NATO is quite capable of defending itself.
How ever Putin wants to justify his illegal war is his business.

Yeah buddy that is not how military defense alliances work. An attack on one is an attack on all. If you think Russia (and China) are not threats to the US then you are living in LaLa Land.

In 1949, USA decided to form a strategic alliance with Europe and Canada because it is in our best interests they are the closest in Western democratic values to the US. It has grown from 12 to 31 member countries in Europe and North America.

NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defense and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict. NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes.

U.S. Intel Officials Detail Threats From China, Russia

China is coming ever closer to being a peer competitor to the United States economically, militarily and technologically.  
"China is especially effective at bringing together a coordinated whole of government approach to demonstrate its strength, and to compel neighbors to acquiesce to its preferences, including its territorial and maritime claims and assertions of sovereignty over Taiwan

Russia also remains a focus of the intelligence community, deservedly so in light of Vladimir Putin's "recent and tragic invasion of Ukraine, which has produced a shock to the geopolitical order with implications for the future that we are only beginning to understand, but are sure to be consequential," she said. 

The intelligence community provided ample warning of Putin's plans, and U.S. officials shared this intelligence with the world. "This is a case where I think all of us wish we had been wrong," Haines said. "The invasion has in fact proceeded consistent with the plan we assessed the Russian military would follow." 
Haines said Putin did not expect the ferocious defense by Ukraine, nor did he expect the unified and fast response by the world.  

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2960113/us-intel-officials-detail-threats-from-china-russia/



Advanced Persistent Threats. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence's 2023 Annual Threat Assessment states that “… Russia will remain a top cyber threat as it refines and employs its espionage, influence, and attack capabilities” and that, “…

https://www.cisa.gov › topics › russia
Russia Cyber Threat Overview and Advisories - CISA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While our trolls talk about imaginings of "tapping out" Ukraine continues to advance, destroy Russian equipment, and reclaim their land from the Russian invaders.

Ignore the Russian trolls. Putin’s bloodthirsty invasion of Ukraine will never be accepted by Freedom loving people of the world. Ukraine is fighting for our values.

Slava Ukraine! Slava Biden! Slava Freedom!

Naaah. Ukraine is justly fighting to repel an invasion. NATO and European nations are quite capable of fighting for themselves, thank you very much. If it was as you said, no one would rely on Ukraine to defend them. They would do it themselves and it would be over in an instant.

You would make Neville Chamberlain proud. “Peace in our time” yes?

Do you think Putin will stop at Ukraine? Emboldened by MAGA and MAGA-adjacent allies in Europe, Putin is seeking to recreate the Russian Empire.

Ever hear of the Domino Effect?

Ukraine is the tip of the spear defending Democracy from tyranny.

Putin isn’t going to war with NATO. Stop the fear mongering.
We once used the phrase domino effect. Bit us in the ass.
Ukraine is the tip of its own spear, as it should be. They’ve done an admirable job too. But no one is trusting their security to Ukraine, otherwise we’d already be at war.
Your hyperbole is way over the top.

In point of fact, the immediate demand before attacking Ukraine was that NATO retreat from Eastern European countries and permanently block Ukraine from joining NATO. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/politics/russia-demands-us-ukraine.html

Yes this is 100% about NATO

Perhaps you should ask if NATO is actually beneficial at this point. If the whole purpose of NATO is to oppose Russia, and NATO expands to Russia's borders, then we create a recipe for conflict. NATO's existence after the end of the Cold War has been a mistake.

The worst part is that NATO is fundamentally unfit for fighting Russia. Too many decades playing in the desert and shipping off its industrial base will do that. NATO is careening towards a conflict that could end the American Empire and NATO in one collosal blunder.

NATO exists to collectively defend its members. It’s done this well. There’s no reason to question the organization because it refuses to involve itself in a war outside of its treaty requirements.

I struggle to think of an example when NATO has collectively defended its member. Not a fake threat across the ocean for its own political gains, but an actual threat to its member.

They haven't had to. That is the whole point.

Do people really not know any history? Article 5 - the mutual self-defense article of the NATO treaty has been invoked only once - after 9/11, in order to come to the mutual defense of the United States.

NATO members committed to do 8 specific things at the request of the United States - things like intelligence sharing, increasing security at US facilities on Allied territory, providing overflight clearance for terrorism operations, etc, and agreed to be ready to deploy NATO Airborne Early Warning Systems and naval forces.

More here - https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s011004b.htm

FWIW, NATO has also played a critical role in the Balkans, by providing support to the SFOR peacekeeping post-Dayton Peace Accords, and ending the war in Kosovo and providing troops for the KFOR peacekeeping mission.

Even today, as extreme nationalist Serb forces tied to Vucic (formerly a Milosevic protege and current President of Serbia) attack Kosovar police forces in northern Kosovo in an attempt to increase broader conflict, NATO has stepped in with additional British NATO forces to keep the peace.

The involvement of NATO in peacekeeping forces in the Balkans was seen at the time as a kind of defense of Europe since fighting spread over time and created huge, destabilizing refugee flows into the rest of Europe.

It's unbelievable and horrifying to me that so many people seem largely unaware of the benefits of NATO. (Not to mention such factually incorrect history on the creation and evolution of NATO until today.

🤯

Ah yes Kosovo, where we supported a break-away province where people had gotten stuck on the wrong side of a post-Cold War border and wanted to be free from an oppressive government.

Which is completely different from Ukraine, because uhmm, Russia is bad I guess. Ukrainians get to rule over and mistreat Russians because Russians are metaphysically bad people.

Any country that cannot accept the internationally recognized borders of other countries is bad. That is not a reflection over the people of Russia but the state.

You Ukraine people just walk into these things over and over again.

Say it with me: Taiwan, Province of China (ISO 3166)

Once again, for people not paying attention, these conflicts in Ukraine, Kosovo and Taiwan have nothing to do with high-moral principles or the like. Its just the "Great Game" hiding behind some PR. Not every American or Westerner wants to play that game, because the costs are almost always greater than the rewards.

Province of the Republic of China, not the Peoples Republic of China.

Taiwan has never, ever in its history been territory held by nor a province governed by the PRC. From the 1600s until 1895, Taiwan was part of Imperial China, until Japan conquered it in 1895. In WWII, the Republic of China liberated Taiwan from the Japanese. The PRC never had anything to do with that. Taiwan is what remains of the Republic of China.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While our trolls talk about imaginings of "tapping out" Ukraine continues to advance, destroy Russian equipment, and reclaim their land from the Russian invaders.

Ignore the Russian trolls. Putin’s bloodthirsty invasion of Ukraine will never be accepted by Freedom loving people of the world. Ukraine is fighting for our values.

Slava Ukraine! Slava Biden! Slava Freedom!

Naaah. Ukraine is justly fighting to repel an invasion. NATO and European nations are quite capable of fighting for themselves, thank you very much. If it was as you said, no one would rely on Ukraine to defend them. They would do it themselves and it would be over in an instant.

You would make Neville Chamberlain proud. “Peace in our time” yes?

Do you think Putin will stop at Ukraine? Emboldened by MAGA and MAGA-adjacent allies in Europe, Putin is seeking to recreate the Russian Empire.

Ever hear of the Domino Effect?

Ukraine is the tip of the spear defending Democracy from tyranny.

Putin isn’t going to war with NATO. Stop the fear mongering.
We once used the phrase domino effect. Bit us in the ass.
Ukraine is the tip of its own spear, as it should be. They’ve done an admirable job too. But no one is trusting their security to Ukraine, otherwise we’d already be at war.
Your hyperbole is way over the top.

In point of fact, the immediate demand before attacking Ukraine was that NATO retreat from Eastern European countries and permanently block Ukraine from joining NATO. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/politics/russia-demands-us-ukraine.html

Yes this is 100% about NATO

Perhaps you should ask if NATO is actually beneficial at this point. If the whole purpose of NATO is to oppose Russia, and NATO expands to Russia's borders, then we create a recipe for conflict. NATO's existence after the end of the Cold War has been a mistake.

The worst part is that NATO is fundamentally unfit for fighting Russia. Too many decades playing in the desert and shipping off its industrial base will do that. NATO is careening towards a conflict that could end the American Empire and NATO in one collosal blunder.

NATO exists to collectively defend its members. It’s done this well. There’s no reason to question the organization because it refuses to involve itself in a war outside of its treaty requirements.

I struggle to think of an example when NATO has collectively defended its member. Not a fake threat across the ocean for its own political gains, but an actual threat to its member.

They haven't had to. That is the whole point.

Do people really not know any history? Article 5 - the mutual self-defense article of the NATO treaty has been invoked only once - after 9/11, in order to come to the mutual defense of the United States.

NATO members committed to do 8 specific things at the request of the United States - things like intelligence sharing, increasing security at US facilities on Allied territory, providing overflight clearance for terrorism operations, etc, and agreed to be ready to deploy NATO Airborne Early Warning Systems and naval forces.

More here - https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s011004b.htm

FWIW, NATO has also played a critical role in the Balkans, by providing support to the SFOR peacekeeping post-Dayton Peace Accords, and ending the war in Kosovo and providing troops for the KFOR peacekeeping mission.

Even today, as extreme nationalist Serb forces tied to Vucic (formerly a Milosevic protege and current President of Serbia) attack Kosovar police forces in northern Kosovo in an attempt to increase broader conflict, NATO has stepped in with additional British NATO forces to keep the peace.

The involvement of NATO in peacekeeping forces in the Balkans was seen at the time as a kind of defense of Europe since fighting spread over time and created huge, destabilizing refugee flows into the rest of Europe.

It's unbelievable and horrifying to me that so many people seem largely unaware of the benefits of NATO. (Not to mention such factually incorrect history on the creation and evolution of NATO until today.

🤯

Ah yes Kosovo, where we supported a break-away province where people had gotten stuck on the wrong side of a post-Cold War border and wanted to be free from an oppressive government.

Which is completely different from Ukraine, because uhmm, Russia is bad I guess. Ukrainians get to rule over and mistreat Russians because Russians are metaphysically bad people.

Any country that cannot accept the internationally recognized borders of other countries is bad. That is not a reflection over the people of Russia but the state.

You Ukraine people just walk into these things over and over again.

Say it with me: Taiwan, Province of China (ISO 3166)

Once again, for people not paying attention, these conflicts in Ukraine, Kosovo and Taiwan have nothing to do with high-moral principles or the like. Its just the "Great Game" hiding behind some PR. Not every American or Westerner wants to play that game, because the costs are almost always greater than the rewards.

Province of the Republic of China, not the Peoples Republic of China.

Taiwan has never, ever in its history been territory held by nor a province governed by the PRC. From the 1600s until 1895, Taiwan was part of Imperial China, until Japan conquered it in 1895. In WWII, the Republic of China liberated Taiwan from the Japanese. The PRC never had anything to do with that. Taiwan is what remains of the Republic of China.

You might want to try telling this to the UN and the 170+ countries that consider Taiwan a province of China. The context was that going against internationally recognized borders makes you the bad guy btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to Ukraine:

Here's a leak of AFU losses in September:


That is in no way sustainable and Western donors can't replace losses at that rate.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/04/europe/uk-nato-ukraine-war-ammunition-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

Russia, meanwhile smells the weakness and has started talking more and more about occupying Odessa and other "historical" parts of Russia.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not a "leak" - it's made-up Russian propaganda. Sorry but the giveaway was "Zaporozhye" - Ukraine would not write it that way.

Don't tell them! Boris and Natasha believe their propaganda is good.. you'll hurt their feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO is the most successful alliance in history and the bedrock of international peace and security. This is why Ukraine was chosen to be in NATO.

Those seeking to undermine NATO = Putin + MAGA

Putin = MAGA

Nope. Wrong. The majority of Republicans support Ukraine. Check your facts.

Code Pink is supporting Putin and protesting to get funding cut off to Ukraine.

"A Russian strike killed at least 51 people gathered for a wake"
"The mourners were in a cafe and there were also victims in a shop in the same building in the village"
"60 people had been attending a "memorial service for a deceased fellow villager."
"He called the strike "completely deliberate""
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-strike-kills-51-gathered-175601620.html

Is that what Code Pink and the majority of Republican's support?

Such nobility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While our trolls talk about imaginings of "tapping out" Ukraine continues to advance, destroy Russian equipment, and reclaim their land from the Russian invaders.

Ignore the Russian trolls. Putin’s bloodthirsty invasion of Ukraine will never be accepted by Freedom loving people of the world. Ukraine is fighting for our values.

Slava Ukraine! Slava Biden! Slava Freedom!

Naaah. Ukraine is justly fighting to repel an invasion. NATO and European nations are quite capable of fighting for themselves, thank you very much. If it was as you said, no one would rely on Ukraine to defend them. They would do it themselves and it would be over in an instant.

You would make Neville Chamberlain proud. “Peace in our time” yes?

Do you think Putin will stop at Ukraine? Emboldened by MAGA and MAGA-adjacent allies in Europe, Putin is seeking to recreate the Russian Empire.

Ever hear of the Domino Effect?

Ukraine is the tip of the spear defending Democracy from tyranny.

Putin isn’t going to war with NATO. Stop the fear mongering.
We once used the phrase domino effect. Bit us in the ass.
Ukraine is the tip of its own spear, as it should be. They’ve done an admirable job too. But no one is trusting their security to Ukraine, otherwise we’d already be at war.
Your hyperbole is way over the top.

In point of fact, the immediate demand before attacking Ukraine was that NATO retreat from Eastern European countries and permanently block Ukraine from joining NATO. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/politics/russia-demands-us-ukraine.html

Yes this is 100% about NATO

Perhaps you should ask if NATO is actually beneficial at this point. If the whole purpose of NATO is to oppose Russia, and NATO expands to Russia's borders, then we create a recipe for conflict. NATO's existence after the end of the Cold War has been a mistake.

The worst part is that NATO is fundamentally unfit for fighting Russia. Too many decades playing in the desert and shipping off its industrial base will do that. NATO is careening towards a conflict that could end the American Empire and NATO in one collosal blunder.

NATO exists to collectively defend its members. It’s done this well. There’s no reason to question the organization because it refuses to involve itself in a war outside of its treaty requirements.

I struggle to think of an example when NATO has collectively defended its member. Not a fake threat across the ocean for its own political gains, but an actual threat to its member.

They haven't had to. That is the whole point.

Do people really not know any history? Article 5 - the mutual self-defense article of the NATO treaty has been invoked only once - after 9/11, in order to come to the mutual defense of the United States.

NATO members committed to do 8 specific things at the request of the United States - things like intelligence sharing, increasing security at US facilities on Allied territory, providing overflight clearance for terrorism operations, etc, and agreed to be ready to deploy NATO Airborne Early Warning Systems and naval forces.

More here - https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s011004b.htm

FWIW, NATO has also played a critical role in the Balkans, by providing support to the SFOR peacekeeping post-Dayton Peace Accords, and ending the war in Kosovo and providing troops for the KFOR peacekeeping mission.

Even today, as extreme nationalist Serb forces tied to Vucic (formerly a Milosevic protege and current President of Serbia) attack Kosovar police forces in northern Kosovo in an attempt to increase broader conflict, NATO has stepped in with additional British NATO forces to keep the peace.

The involvement of NATO in peacekeeping forces in the Balkans was seen at the time as a kind of defense of Europe since fighting spread over time and created huge, destabilizing refugee flows into the rest of Europe.

It's unbelievable and horrifying to me that so many people seem largely unaware of the benefits of NATO. (Not to mention such factually incorrect history on the creation and evolution of NATO until today.

🤯

Ah yes Kosovo, where we supported a break-away province where people had gotten stuck on the wrong side of a post-Cold War border and wanted to be free from an oppressive government.

Which is completely different from Ukraine, because uhmm, Russia is bad I guess. Ukrainians get to rule over and mistreat Russians because Russians are metaphysically bad people.

Any country that cannot accept the internationally recognized borders of other countries is bad. That is not a reflection over the people of Russia but the state.

You Ukraine people just walk into these things over and over again.

Say it with me: Taiwan, Province of China (ISO 3166)

Once again, for people not paying attention, these conflicts in Ukraine, Kosovo and Taiwan have nothing to do with high-moral principles or the like. Its just the "Great Game" hiding behind some PR. Not every American or Westerner wants to play that game, because the costs are almost always greater than the rewards.

Province of the Republic of China, not the Peoples Republic of China.

Taiwan has never, ever in its history been territory held by nor a province governed by the PRC. From the 1600s until 1895, Taiwan was part of Imperial China, until Japan conquered it in 1895. In WWII, the Republic of China liberated Taiwan from the Japanese. The PRC never had anything to do with that. Taiwan is what remains of the Republic of China.

You might want to try telling this to the UN and the 170+ countries that consider Taiwan a province of China. The context was that going against internationally recognized borders makes you the bad guy btw.

Sorry but those are the actual historical facts, regardless of whether the UN wants to pussyfoot around it or not. Taiwan is not, and has never been a part of the PRC. The PRC's only possible claim is a historical one which can only be done by tying them to pre-1895 Imperial China, which the CCP rejects, anyhow.

The bad guys are the ones who lie about history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO is the most successful alliance in history and the bedrock of international peace and security. This is why Ukraine was chosen to be in NATO.

Those seeking to undermine NATO = Putin + MAGA

Putin = MAGA

Nope. Wrong. The majority of Republicans support Ukraine. Check your facts.

Code Pink is supporting Putin and protesting to get funding cut off to Ukraine.

"A Russian strike killed at least 51 people gathered for a wake"
"The mourners were in a cafe and there were also victims in a shop in the same building in the village"
"60 people had been attending a "memorial service for a deceased fellow villager."
"He called the strike "completely deliberate""
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-strike-kills-51-gathered-175601620.html

Is that what Code Pink and the majority of Republican's support?

Such nobility.

Code Pink drank the Russian kool aid about "the evil West made Russia invade"
Their opinion is wrong, and thus irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Keep funding ukraine, but not too much

i.e. follow biden's formula.

he's correctly managing this conflict on a three pronged basis.

1. Russian Strategic Defeat (check)

2. Manage escalalation risk (check)

3. Ukraine territorial integrity (negotiable).

if you push too much, you don't want rash escalation

keeping this at a nice simmer ensures strategic defeat of russia

This is correct
These are the US goals and Ukraine should finally realize that no one important cares if they “win” whatever it means for them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While our trolls talk about imaginings of "tapping out" Ukraine continues to advance, destroy Russian equipment, and reclaim their land from the Russian invaders.

Ignore the Russian trolls. Putin’s bloodthirsty invasion of Ukraine will never be accepted by Freedom loving people of the world. Ukraine is fighting for our values.

Slava Ukraine! Slava Biden! Slava Freedom!

Naaah. Ukraine is justly fighting to repel an invasion. NATO and European nations are quite capable of fighting for themselves, thank you very much. If it was as you said, no one would rely on Ukraine to defend them. They would do it themselves and it would be over in an instant.

You would make Neville Chamberlain proud. “Peace in our time” yes?

Do you think Putin will stop at Ukraine? Emboldened by MAGA and MAGA-adjacent allies in Europe, Putin is seeking to recreate the Russian Empire.

Ever hear of the Domino Effect?

Ukraine is the tip of the spear defending Democracy from tyranny.

Putin isn’t going to war with NATO. Stop the fear mongering.
We once used the phrase domino effect. Bit us in the ass.
Ukraine is the tip of its own spear, as it should be. They’ve done an admirable job too. But no one is trusting their security to Ukraine, otherwise we’d already be at war.
Your hyperbole is way over the top.

In point of fact, the immediate demand before attacking Ukraine was that NATO retreat from Eastern European countries and permanently block Ukraine from joining NATO. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/politics/russia-demands-us-ukraine.html

Yes this is 100% about NATO

Perhaps you should ask if NATO is actually beneficial at this point. If the whole purpose of NATO is to oppose Russia, and NATO expands to Russia's borders, then we create a recipe for conflict. NATO's existence after the end of the Cold War has been a mistake.

The worst part is that NATO is fundamentally unfit for fighting Russia. Too many decades playing in the desert and shipping off its industrial base will do that. NATO is careening towards a conflict that could end the American Empire and NATO in one collosal blunder.

NATO exists to collectively defend its members. It’s done this well. There’s no reason to question the organization because it refuses to involve itself in a war outside of its treaty requirements.

I struggle to think of an example when NATO has collectively defended its member. Not a fake threat across the ocean for its own political gains, but an actual threat to its member.

They haven't had to. That is the whole point.

Do people really not know any history? Article 5 - the mutual self-defense article of the NATO treaty has been invoked only once - after 9/11, in order to come to the mutual defense of the United States.

NATO members committed to do 8 specific things at the request of the United States - things like intelligence sharing, increasing security at US facilities on Allied territory, providing overflight clearance for terrorism operations, etc, and agreed to be ready to deploy NATO Airborne Early Warning Systems and naval forces.

More here - https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s011004b.htm

FWIW, NATO has also played a critical role in the Balkans, by providing support to the SFOR peacekeeping post-Dayton Peace Accords, and ending the war in Kosovo and providing troops for the KFOR peacekeeping mission.

Even today, as extreme nationalist Serb forces tied to Vucic (formerly a Milosevic protege and current President of Serbia) attack Kosovar police forces in northern Kosovo in an attempt to increase broader conflict, NATO has stepped in with additional British NATO forces to keep the peace.

The involvement of NATO in peacekeeping forces[b] in the Balkans was seen at the time as a kind of defense of Europe since fighting spread over time and created huge, destabilizing refugee flows into the rest of Europe.

It's unbelievable and horrifying to me that so many people seem largely unaware of the benefits of NATO. (Not to mention such factually incorrect history on the creation and evolution of NATO until today.

🤯

You know perfectly well what happened after 9/11 wasn't about protecting the United States. Bush wanted to invade something, and NATO made it happen and look kosher.

DP

No we don’t know that and you mischaracterized NATO’s involvement.


[b]Has NATO ever started a war? - History Stack Exchange

NATO's operations were focussed on anti-terror and enforce blockades or no-fly zones on specific nations and providing humanitarian assistance. The operations were responses to actions by other nations but not started by NATO itself therefore NATO hasn't started any wars.Mar 1, 2022
https://history.stackexchange.com › ...


What was the role of NATO in the Iraq war?

The March 2003 campaign against Iraq was conducted by a coalition of forces from different countries, some of which were NATO member countries and some were not. NATO as an organization had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign or to conduct it.May 19, 2022

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_51977.htm#:~:text=The%20March%202003%20campaign%20against,campaign%20or%20to%20conduct%20it.


From 2004 to 2011, NATO conducted a relatively small but important support operation in Iraq that consisted of training, mentoring and assisting the Iraqi security forces.May 24, 2023
https://www.nato.int › topics_166936
Topic: NATO Mission Iraq


NATO and Afghanistan

For nearly 20 years, NATO Allies and partner countries had military forces deployed to Afghanistan under a United Nations (UN) Security Council mandate. NATO Allies went into Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, to ensure that the country would not again become a safe haven for international terrorists to attack NATO member countries. Over the last two decades, there have been no terrorist attacks on Allied soil from Afghanistan.

In February 2020, the United States and the Taliban signed an agreement on the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan by May 2021. In April 2021, NATO Foreign and Defence ministers decided to withdraw all Allied troops from Afghanistan within a few months.

In summer 2021, following the collapse of the Afghan government and the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces, NATO focused on ensuring the safe departure of personnel from Allied and partner countries, and NATO-affiliated Afghans. In August 2021, more than 120,000 people were evacuated in the Allied airlift from Kabul airport as part of the coalition effort – including around 2,000 Afghans working for NATO, and their families. Many of them have already been resettled in Allied and partner countries. For several others, NATO is working with Allies to provide housing, care and support while arrangements are made for follow-on movement to Allied and partner countries. 


https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm

LOL by all means, let NATO tell its own story, it's not like they are biased at all.

There is a reason why European countries that formerly sought be neutral between EU/West and Russia have clamored to join NATO since this illegal Ukraine War. People have realized Russia is actually a grave threat to Western democracy and the rule of law.

But by all means continue to espouse Putin’s lies and misrepresentations about the clearly Necessary defense alliance.

NP. NATO is necessary to defend Europe. No one with any credibility argues otherwise.
Not sure why we are talking about this on a thread about Ukraine and Russia though.

You lack credibility to contend that Ukraine and Russia can be discussed without discussing NATO and Europe. Clue/ this is how Putin justifies his illegal war.

Lol. The war is between Ukraine and Russia. Should we provide weapons to Ukraine? Most definitely but NATO is not at war, nor anywhere close to going to war. NATO is quite capable of defending itself.
How ever Putin wants to justify his illegal war is his business.

Yeah buddy that is not how military defense alliances work. An attack on one is an attack on all. If you think Russia (and China) are not threats to the US then you are living in LaLa Land.

In 1949, USA decided to form a strategic alliance with Europe and Canada because it is in our best interests they are the closest in Western democratic values to the US. It has grown from 12 to 31 member countries in Europe and North America.

NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defense and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict. NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes.

U.S. Intel Officials Detail Threats From China, Russia

China is coming ever closer to being a peer competitor to the United States economically, militarily and technologically.  
"China is especially effective at bringing together a coordinated whole of government approach to demonstrate its strength, and to compel neighbors to acquiesce to its preferences, including its territorial and maritime claims and assertions of sovereignty over Taiwan

Russia also remains a focus of the intelligence community, deservedly so in light of Vladimir Putin's "recent and tragic invasion of Ukraine, which has produced a shock to the geopolitical order with implications for the future that we are only beginning to understand, but are sure to be consequential," she said. 

The intelligence community provided ample warning of Putin's plans, and U.S. officials shared this intelligence with the world. "This is a case where I think all of us wish we had been wrong," Haines said. "The invasion has in fact proceeded consistent with the plan we assessed the Russian military would follow." 
Haines said Putin did not expect the ferocious defense by Ukraine, nor did he expect the unified and fast response by the world.  

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2960113/us-intel-officials-detail-threats-from-china-russia/



Advanced Persistent Threats. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence's 2023 Annual Threat Assessment states that “… Russia will remain a top cyber threat as it refines and employs its espionage, influence, and attack capabilities” and that, “…

https://www.cisa.gov › topics › russia
Russia Cyber Threat Overview and Advisories - CISA

What is that military alliance in which Ukraine is a member?