Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There were a few hundred Cubans in Grenada, most will have served in the army as national service, they were working as construction workers in Grenada, what would you have them do when a bunch of lunatics invaded and started shooting? alo what gets me is with your warped mindset, little Grenada was a threat to the security of the US, but a Nato infested Ukraine with a fascist Regime is not a threat to Russia, behave yourself Sgt.LOL ya the pitched battles between the army and Marine Units that went there with them were faked right?
Actually i don't think they hate Ukraine, they hate what it has become since the Coup, a genocidal fascist regime.Crimea voted. They hate Ukraine. Always have.
NATO is still there because Russia still behaves like the USSR. When countries like Sweden and Finland who spent nearly eighty years opposing membership in NATO and being neutral to the USSR/Russia, running to join NATO for protection from Russia, you know Russia is the problem, NOT NATO.You forget some of those what became Warsaw pact Countries had sided with Hitler, Hungary, Romania the Baltics so cry me a river, and the Waraw pact was formed five years after Nato and it is no more, so why is Nato still there and expanding?
Russians didn’t live in Crimea, CRIMEANs lived in Crimea. Russia conquered Crimea from the Ottoman Empire. Crimea was Muslim, not Russian Orthodox. The Soviet communists conquered it in 1920 and murdered a large percentage of the native population. They then made it an independent Republic in the USSR. Crimea was NEVER part of Russia.You have made an art form out of stupidity, Russians have been in Crimea for centuries you idiot because it's Russian, it's not like Israel where the Zionist have imported jews from god knows where, talk about weaponised ignorance.
Russian for at least two hundred years, in fact much longer than Hawaii has been American after it was stolen at gunpoint.Russians didn’t live in Crimea, CRIMEANs lived in Crimea. Russia conquered Crimea from the Ottoman Empire. Crimea was Muslim, not Russian Orthodox. The Soviet communists conquered it in 1920 and murdered a large percentage of the native population. They then made it an independent Republic in the USSR. Crimea was NEVER part of Russia.
Bullshit, Nato needed an enemy after the Soviet Union went so they decided that was Russia, they have to keep the scam going for the arms manufacturers, it's not rocket science, Smedley Butler said it with his war is a racket speech, i don't know why some people are so slow to catch on.NATO is still there because Russia still behaves like the USSR. When countries like Sweden and Finland who spent nearly eighty years opposing membership in NATO and being neutral to the USSR/Russia, running to join NATO for protection from Russia, you know Russia is the problem, NOT NATO.
How do you explain Sweden and Finland's conduct? both were opposed to NATO membership for eighty years. What changed their minds? How about Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary? Al were members of the Warsaw Pact and Russian allies who joined NATO as soon as they could. Who were they trying to get protection from? NATO and the EU courted Russia after the fall of communism pouring billions of dollars and Euros into the nation. NATO even wanted Russia to join, and Putin declined applying for membership because he would have to meet the same conditions the other NATO nations met. The problem as always been Russian conduct, paranoia and inflated self-opinion.Bullshit, Nato needed an enemy after the Soviet Union went so they decided that was Russia, they have to keep the scam going for the arms manufacturers, it's not rocket science, Smedley Butler said it with his war is a racket speech, i don't know why some people are so slow to catch on.
Internal NATO reaction to these former Warsaw Pact countries was initially negative, but by the 1991 Rome summit in November, members agreed to a series of goals that could lead to accession, such as market and democratic liberalization, and that NATO should be a partner in these efforts. Debate within the American government as to whether enlargement of NATO was feasible or desirable began during the George H.W. Bush administration.[40] By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen Euro-American hegemony.
The handwriting had been on the wall for a long time that the USSR was breaking up and there was going to be instability. The fact that the existing NATO countries could see a need to provide that stability had nothing to do with the desire of the countries previously conquered and dominated by Soviet tyranny for the safety of joining NATO and the EU.NATO is still there because Russia still behaves like the USSR.
How could the behavior of post-soviet Russia have caused NATO's expansion when the decision to expand it was taken in the capital of the Roman Empire in 1991, 2 MONTHS BEFORE THE FORMAL DISMANTLEMENT OF THE SOVIET UNION?
Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia
The Bear and the Global GodzillaLosing to a minor country a fraction of their size and you post this LOL military genius you are not.
Trick or TreatyNo.
America applied all the might it dared to apply against Russia in Syria, and Russia won a tactical victory in that the world focused on the fact that Russia is an invited ally and America was involved in aggression against Syria.
We won't know until some Nato nation attacks Russia or vice versa. And fwiw, it turns out that exceptions to honouring article are possible for all concerned if any attack Russia. It's more likely the US would sit out a war between Russia and Poland. America is fully aware that it's interference will lead to a nuclear war. Military strategists are almost unanimous on America's inability to wage war against Russia.
In fact, article 5 doesn't suggest that all hell will break loose. You need to think it through without consideration of Nato.
Limitations agreed upon must be observed by both Russia and America. It's a war that's completely about America grinding down Russia to eventual defeat.
It must not turn to nuclear and it must not end in Russia's defeat! The Russian people and Putin are totally resolved to their country continuing as an intact world power.
What you have been blabbering about is backed up by the MSM bulshit only so what mental abilities are you on?
You are the one who brought Mexico into the debate.
They were not a threat, only in your mashed up brain, and they didn't have any armed troops there, they were construction workers you clown.
There Is No Land of the Free That Is Not Also a Home of the BraveAmerica with small contributions by Nato countries have thrown everything they have against Russian forces, short of nuclear, and have failed.
This is the reason why the question asked by this thread needs to be answered.
What does winning a war mean?
It means the country that survives can go forward unimpeded by other countries efforts to monopolize the world's resources.
For America, losing the current war means going forward without control over the world's precious resources.
Depending on China's plans for the future, it means sharing of the world's resources. Currently China and Russia are holding the lion's share.
And Russia has sworn to fight to the end to remain intact as a country. That means including nuclear war!
It all raises the question on whether America can accept 'not winning' this time.
Fake news as usual. as for Angola that was another Country where you supported terrorism, now the Cubans did get involved there and smashed the South African Apartheid forces, the Nazi Apartheid forces your Country supported.Right, construction workers in Cuban Army uniforms and armed with AK-47s. Who had participated in the coup which resulted in the death of the President of Grenada, his wife, and several cabinet members and union leaders. And then declared themselves to be the new government.
Not sure why you are saying that, Cuba never hid the fact that their soldiers took part in that coup, along with Angola.
They have not provided stability they have caused instability as we now see with the War in Ukraine.The handwriting had been on the wall for a long time that the USSR was breaking up and there was going to be instability. The fact that the existing NATO countries could see a need to provide that stability had nothing to do with the desire of the countries previously conquered and dominated by Soviet tyranny for the safety of joining NATO and the EU.
As for Finland their leadership are insane, for almost 80 years after WW2 where the Finns sided with Hitler there had been zero problems between the Soviet Union and later Russia and Finland, they had big trading relationship, now for some insane reason they want to be an enemy of Russia, same with Sweden,after the War the Soviet Union actually allowed Finland to exist, they didn't occupy the Country, but now they have made the same mistake they did in WW2 by joining a gang that's hostile to Russia on a deranged level.How do you explain Sweden and Finland's conduct? both were opposed to NATO membership for eighty years. What changed their minds? How about Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary? Al were members of the Warsaw Pact and Russian allies who joined NATO as soon as they could. Who were they trying to get protection from? NATO and the EU courted Russia after the fall of communism pouring billions of dollars and Euros into the nation. NATO even wanted Russia to join, and Putin declined applying for membership because he would have to meet the same conditions the other NATO nations met. The problem as always been Russian conduct, paranoia and inflated self-opinion.
:upscale()/2015/05/07/870/n/1922398/57f47434_42-29222464.jpg)
