sprite_sponsorship t1_ja04lm8 wrote
Reply to comment by RedneckLiberace in Protest In Berlin Over Arming Ukraine Against Russia Draws Thousands by Neo2199
This makes no sense. Why would Russia invade Germany?
RedneckLiberace t1_ja05srs wrote
Why would Russia invade Afghanistan? Why would Russia invade Ukraine? Why would Russia invade the Baltic States? Why would Russia invade Poland? Putin invaded Ukraine in part because he's counting on fools like you failing/refusing to do anything but sit back and watch him gobble up Europe.
[deleted] t1_ja08w7i wrote
[removed]
sprite_sponsorship t1_ja0edru wrote
You think that NATO will sit back and refuse to engage Russia directly if they invade a member country? That’s literally WWIII, a war that Russia cannot win. They can only nuke the planet, and in that scenario, everyone loses. If you think Putin is so crazy to do that, you’ve been watching too many Marvel movies.
khanfusion t1_ja0m0h9 wrote
I'll take "incredibly stupid questions" for 100, Ken.
sprite_sponsorship t1_ja0oq3c wrote
Then why not invade now? Wars can have more than one front and that move would force the West to ask its people for more than just their money. If Russia is willing to incur Article 5, then why not now?
khanfusion t1_ja0p3be wrote
Because NATO, obviously. But in the meantime, Putin has been trying to undermine and cause NATO to break apart for years, and the poster above you said "one day."
This isn't tricky.
Edit: Also "why not now" well Russia's somewhat revealed itself to be militarily incompetent. Even without NATO it would make no sense to invade *now*, since they'd fail even more miserably than they are in Ukraine. The point still stands about the future, however.
sprite_sponsorship t1_ja0pgz3 wrote
The US blowing up Nordstream II is undermining NATO. Russia poses no realistic risk to NATO, and more than it does to any human who wants to take his chances after nuclear war.
khanfusion t1_ja0s8ir wrote
You're saying the quiet part loud. Any proof about the Nordstream explosion?
sprite_sponsorship t1_ja0zfwu wrote
Well, the president literally said that the US was going to do it, and our ambassador to the UN said that she was happy that it happened, so I guess common sense? What would convince you?
khanfusion t1_ja1cnmk wrote
>Well, the president literally said
Go on, show me.
sprite_sponsorship t1_ja1dh5a wrote
khanfusion t1_ja1dr5p wrote
"U.S. President Joe Biden said on Monday that the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline would be halted" "said Russian forces crossing into Ukraine would trigger a shutdown."
So not literally.
sprite_sponsorship t1_ja1dzo0 wrote
Blowing it up it a shutdown, now you are arguing in bad faith. He said “bring an end to it” not “shut it down for a while”.
Word games are cope
Not to mention the credibility of the reporter who broke the story, but I don’t want to trigger you further
khanfusion t1_ja1edya wrote
Nope, try again.
It's called diplomacy. "Shut down" means shut down.... which happened that same month, a year ago. Whatever happened to the pipeline 6 months later is still in question, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that the US did it, since it was already shut down at that time.
sprite_sponsorship t1_ja1el5j wrote
He said “bring an end to it” dumbass and why would the us let Russia sell oil to NATO countries, raising money to fund their war effort? What is wrong with you?
Even in a world where you believe this is a noble war, it’s good strategy. If you don’t think the us did it I’d wonder why you don’t think our leadership is doing a terrible job.
khanfusion t1_ja1fo3d wrote
That's the diplomacy part, and why Germany didn't authorize its usage. Or did you miss that part?
"Even in a world where you believe this is a noble war, it’s good strategy"
Not really, since a pipeline not in use due to diplomacy is better than clandestine sabotage of said pipeline in allied waters, especially if it could be a future asset. Russia's fuel is no longer a money maker in Europe, job done.
But wait, you said something about arguing in bad faith after I asked for evidence?
Trugdigity t1_ja1z4zy wrote
Biden didn’t say we were going to blow it up, he was saying that he would block its use. Which he did by selling Germany American natural gas at a subsidized rate.
Phssthp0kThePak t1_ja4nqco wrote
Sweden has the evidence, ask them. Tell us how Russia did it. How did they evade detection so close to a NATO country's shore? Shouldn't that be causing a shake-up in NATO naval defense?
khanfusion t1_ja6b2j0 wrote
>Tell us how Russia did it. How did they evade detection so close to a NATO country's shore?
Well, they control the intake side of the pipelines. They can put a small machine to carry a bomb down there. They can then detonate the bomb. It's actually super easy.
Phssthp0kThePak t1_ja6feii wrote
Those things (pigs) need the gas flowing to move. They cannot be self propelled for 755 miles. We need the metallurgical results from the Swedes. Did the pipe blow up from the inside or outside. Why the foot dragging on this if it could easily prove Russia did it?
khanfusion t1_ja6kgfy wrote
Um, no. They could easily be a self propelling robot. It's not even hard engineering. People in the 70s could have developed it.
Phssthp0kThePak t1_ja6qjea wrote
With what? Batteries? A long cable? Not over 750 miles. Go read about them. Communications and positioning are hard problems too. Note that no one is offering details from the US administration about scenarios like this. They know it's impossible.
khanfusion t1_ja8q3rf wrote
"The US government isn't publicly speculating, therefore they're guilty."
Phssthp0kThePak t1_ja4o1tu wrote
You are right. This will have repercussions for years to come in the European-US and intra-European relations and strategy. Such a stupid move by the US.
TROPtastic t1_ja5eeq5 wrote
>The US blowing up Nordstream II
This is not reflected by an objective analysis of how the attack was performed.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments