Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (761632)	4/19/2022 12:42:38 PM
From: sm1th	1 Recommendation Recommended By TimF Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793750

having zero barrier between NATO and Russia is an extremely bad idea We already have that with the Baltics, Kaliningrad surrounded by Poland and Lithuania, and also a small border with Norway.

To: skinowski who wrote (761632)	4/19/2022 1:22:10 PM
From: greenspirit	3 Recommendations Recommended By Bruce L THE WATSONYOUTH TimF Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793750

To believe NATO would invade Russia is absurd. So, their intelligence services are so completely dysfunctional, they don't understand the workings of democracies in Europe and are afraid rogue elements within the democracy would out of the blue attack them? Sorry, can't believe that nonsense. What they are afraid of is what I wrote earlier, an Army would be put in their way to defend those nations, which means they are screwed in regard to more conquest of land and resources. That upsets them. To compare Cuba with the situation in Ukraine is to compare apples to oranges. Russia wanted to put nuclear armed Russian missiles in Cuba. One was actually being assembled at the time. That's what the 13 day "crisis" was all about. Which, by the way, ended peacefully because we had a President that stood up to the nutcase communist empire of the former Soviet Union. Did NATO place a D-5 Nuclear missile in Ukraine? And Ukraine wasn't using 25%-40% of their GDP to arm themselves for an invasion of Russia.

To: skinowski who wrote (761632)	4/19/2022 4:41:32 PM
From: Bruce L	1 Recommendation Recommended By greenspirit Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793750

WHY SHOULD A COMMON BORDER WITH A NUCLEAR ARMED NATO MATTER TO RUSSIA? Prussia/Germany had a common border with Russia for more than a 100 years...with nary any war or even territorial dispute. The common border extended far up the Baltic coast to Koenigsberg, the home of Emmanuel Kant who often gave lectures to Russian officers who came from just across the border. (Renamed Kallinengrad by the Soviets and part of Russia today) Two great empires and a long common border was no problem. Germany went to war with Russia because Austro-Hungary had a legitimate grievance with Serbia and Russia/France had agreed between themselves that nothing could justify Austrian military action against Serbia. Austro-Hungary was Germany's only reliable ally and Germany it would be alone if it did stand up for its ally. (Respectfully, I suggest you read Christopher Clark's "The Sleepwalkers" which David Goldman touts as the definitive account for the origins of WW I) So what's the big deal about nuclear weapons along a common border? We have or can have nukes in the three Baltic countries. We can put nukes in submarines or ships just off the Russian border/coast. And they can put nukes 10 miles off our American coast...and we can do nothing! For that matter, they can put nukes in Cuba or Venezuela, and what could we do... even if we know of them? Russian nukes in Cuba in 1962 was a whole different era; we were overwhelmingly dominant then and the Russians knew it. We live in an era when China, Israel, Taiwan, Iran etc. Are just going to have to learn to live with the fact of nearby hostile nukes....just as India and Pakistan already have.