North Korean weapons are killing Ukrainians. The implications are far bigger

[Gunny]

Because a regional conflict isn't our business:rolleyes:

North Korean weapons are killing Ukrainians. The implications are far bigger (bbc.com) (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68933778)

[Kathianne]

Because a regional conflict isn't our business:rolleyes:

North Korean weapons are killing Ukrainians. The implications are far bigger (bbc.com) (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68933778)

Hey, so many say it's not our problem, but Europe's. As these alliances grow in numbers and strength I wonder how they'll think down the road.

[Gunny]

Hey, so many say it's not our problem, but Europe's. As these alliances grow in numbers and strength I wonder how they'll think down the road.I thought N Korea was OUR problem? At least N Korea seems to think so:rolleyes:

I'd like to know how N Korea is getting Western technology, specifically US, and components when they are embargoed.

[Kathianne]

I thought N Korea was OUR problem? At least N Korea seems to think so:rolleyes:

I'd like to know how N Korea is getting Western technology, specifically US, and components when they are embargoed.

China, Russia, Iran, Turkey all come to mind.

[Gunny]

China, Russia, Iran, Turkey all come to mind.I thought China and Iran were embargoed as well as far as weapons technology and components are concerned. Can't say about Turkey. While I wouldn't put it past Turkey if it could benefit from it, I don't see that as the case here. Turkey can make it really easy on Russia if it wants. It controls a lot of beach front property on the Black Sea and the Bosporous.

I know our Republican House is real busy with all its important investigations, but seems to me finding a National security breech, if there is one, might Trump its current lineup of causes.

[SassyLady]

You mean like SOS Clinton selling uranium to Russia way back when?

[revelarts]

I guess I just don't understand why it's shocking that ANY country on our decades long Sh!t list isn't helping Russia.
The U.S. has been suppling Ukraine weapons & cash (& bioweapons labs), so has most of NATO....since before the war. Now even more so.
If you're an embargoed state under a dictatorship and have chance to weaken the friend of those that kill your economy and keep you from your goals.
should we be surprised?
Has NK ever been our friend? have we been a friend to it?

Here's the thing come to my mind, A flood of Russian Soldiers dying by a constant flow U.S. weapons.
To me that seems at least as problematic (more so) as anything North Korea might supply.

Any implications?
Is our supply of tonnes of weapons to Ukraine a definitive sign of our desire to go to war with and destroy Russia?
Could a country's leadership, or military, or former military legitimately think that?
Or are they all suppose to assume that the U.S. only has good & limited intentions as more Russian dead bodies return home?

[Kathianne]

I guess I just don't understand why it's shocking that ANY country on our decades long Sh!t list isn't helping Russia.
The U.S. has been suppling Ukraine weapons & cash (& bioweapons labs), so has most of NATO....since before the war. Now even more so.
If you're an embargoed state under a dictatorship and have chance to weaken the friend of those that kill your economy and keep you from your goals.
should we be surprised?
Has NK ever been our friend? have we been a friend to it?

Here's the thing come to my mind, A flood of Russian Soldiers dying by a constant flow U.S. weapons.
To me that seems at least as problematic (more so) as anything North Korea might supply.

Any implications?
Is our supply of tonnes of weapons to Ukraine a definitive sign of our desire to go to war with and destroy Russia?
Could a country's leadership, or military, or former military legitimately think that?
Or are they all suppose to assume that the U.S. only has good & limited intentions as more Russian dead bodies return home?

Here's the thing you're not getting. I for one don't really have a problem with the number of dead Russian bodies being returned to Russia, as it was Russia that was the aggressor, proven by where the bodies ARE physically being killed. Russia leaves, bodies stop dying-on both sides. Russia meanwhile continues to press their aggression and would continue if not blocked, killing civilians and military.

Want peace? Don't start wars.

[revelarts]

Here's the thing you're not getting. I for one don't really have a problem with the number of dead Russian bodies being returned to Russia, as it was Russia that was the aggressor, proven by where the bodies ARE physically being killed. Russia leaves, bodies stop dying-on both sides. Russia meanwhile continues to press their aggression and would continue if not blocked, killing civilians and military.

Want peace? Don't start wars.

Yes, i get that, partly.
what i don't get why we can't acknowledge ALL the facts that lead up to it.
it wasn't just that Putin just woke up in the morning and decided to attack Ukraine.
there'd been Ukrainians killing other Ukrainians in the Russian speaking areas of Ukraine for like 14 years.. on their broader, a coup and meddling in Ukrainian politics by the U.S. (& Russia).
U.S. BioWeapons labs in Ukraine.
And talks of NATO expansion with the possible entrance Ukraine after decades of assurances that NATO would not expand in general and at the least Ukraine was to remain a neutral buffer state.
"U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/)).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early#_edn1) The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2] (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early#_edn2)..."
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early



As you said in the other thread, all sides need to acknowledge the humanity and POV of the other side.
Russia said they'd leave on at least 2 occasions. But the agreements were rejected... at the urging of the U.K. & U.S. is that Ukrainian sovereignty?

Do you reject all of that out of hand as 100% false and irrelevant?
And only want to look at the invasion from our perspective?

Also so if anyone starts wars, is the U.S. is obligated to supply arms indefinitely to those attacked?
there have been MANY countries attacked over the past 30 years that we have NOT supplied weapons too. and a few countries that we've attack because we THOUGHT they MIGHT attack us ONE day. Should we not be upset at those who supplied weapons that killed our soldiers?
Should we have NOT invaded maybe? Frankly seems we had even less reason to invade Iraq (& even Afghanistan) than Russia has for invading Ukraine.

[Kathianne]

Yes, i get that, partly.
what i don't get why we can't acknowledge ALL the facts that lead up to it.
it wasn't just that Putin just woke up in the morning and decided to attack Ukraine.
there'd been Ukrainians killing other Ukrainians in the Russian speaking areas of Ukraine for like 14 years, a coup and meddling in Ukrainian politics by the U.S. (& Russia).
U.S. BioWeapons labs in Ukraine.
And talks of NATO expansion with the possible entrance Ukraine after decades of assurances that NATO would not expand in general and at the least Ukraine was to remain a neutral buffer state.
"U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/)).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early#_edn1) The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2] (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early#_edn2)..."
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early



As you said in the other thread, all sides need to acknowledge the humanity and POV of the other side.
Russia said they'd leave on at least 2 occasions. But the agreements were rejected... at the urging of the U.K. & U.S. is that Ukrainian sovereignty?

Do you reject all of that out of hand as 100% false and irrelevant?
And only want to look at the invasion from our perspective?

I don't buy what Putin sells at face value, neither do other countries, especially those he's invading or threatening to. When questioned, the 'deal is off.' So yeah, I found the offers meaningless.

[revelarts]

I don't buy what Putin sells at face value, neither do other countries, especially those he's invading or threatening to. When questioned, the 'deal is off.' So yeah, I found the offers meaningless.
do you buy that the U.S. led them to believe that NATO would not Grow from the 90s forward?
Do you think the U.S. should have stood by that?
Putin didn't make that up.

"U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/)).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early#_edn1) The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2] (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early#_edn2)..."
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...-leaders-early (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early)


Or should Putin and Russia in general not have any real concerns about that... because we're the good guys?

[Kathianne]

I'm for NATO. I think the additions have been good, it is time to reconsider Turkey.

[revelarts]

I'm for NATO. I think the additions have been good, it is time to reconsider Turkey.
Russia thinks the additions have been bad. and are signs of western expansion. broken agreements and a danger to them.

is that something we should consider, or just dismiss?

[Gunny]

I guess I just don't understand why it's shocking that ANY country on our decades long Sh!t list isn't helping Russia.
The U.S. has been suppling Ukraine weapons & cash (& bioweapons labs), so has most of NATO....since before the war. Now even more so.
If you're an embargoed state under a dictatorship and have chance to weaken the friend of those that kill your economy and keep you from your goals.
should we be surprised?
Has NK ever been our friend? have we been a friend to it?

Here's the thing come to my mind, A flood of Russian Soldiers dying by a constant flow U.S. weapons.
To me that seems at least as problematic (more so) as anything North Korea might supply.

Any implications?
Is our supply of tonnes of weapons to Ukraine a definitive sign of our desire to go to war with and destroy Russia?
Could a country's leadership, or military, or former military legitimately think that?
Or are they all suppose to assume that the U.S. only has good & limited intentions as more Russian dead bodies return home?

The only people "shocked" are the ones that don't see current events as prelude to war. As far as bad guys helping bad guys? Nothing new there.

If you want to call it "concern", mine is "When is the US government going to quit gladhandling dirtbags and treat them for who and what they are?" Diplomatic insincerity is STILL insincerity and dirtbags are always dirtbags.

More importantly, the US government needs to quit running its mouth like it's in charge of anything and start gearing up. These dirtbags respect and understand only brute force. They're coming, sooner or later. They'd think twice if we were on the same military footing as they are.

[Kathianne]

Russia thinks the additions have been bad. and are signs of western expansion. broken agreements and a danger to them.

is that something we should consider, or just dismiss?

Dismiss, as Putin does borders.

[Gunny]

Dismiss, as Putin does borders.I agree, at this point. But let's give Rev his due. The West DID promise NATO would not expand and broke those promises. I don't disagree (with a few exceptions) with allowing countries that fear Russia join NATO, but it was going back on our word.

On the other hand, Georgia and Chechnya were not threats to become NATO members and Putin marched right in to both. Russia still occupies about 20% of Georgia and has a puppet installed in Chechnya. It is not that the fears of these countries, especially the smaller ones are without merit.

[fj1200]

An expansionist NATO is just something that putin likes to say to cover whatever his true aims are. /opinion

It's not like NATO has conquered new territory lately.

[Gunny]

An expansionist NATO is just something that putin likes to say to cover whatever his true aims are. /opinion

It's not like NATO has conquered new territory lately.I agree. Never meant to imply otherwise. Nor does it excuse Putin's behavior. Nobody in NATO was attacking Russia. Putin wants to control Ukraine and its resources, and doesn't care who he has to kill to do it.

Speaking of: Macron is on record stating France will not allow Ukraine to fall to Russia and would send in troops to stop it. How the worm has turned on who possesses the balls nowadays :)