All the world’s seas are a NATO lake under the rainbow flag of Anglo-American hegemony.
Of course, that was true when battleships and aircraft carriers were state-of-the-art weapons. Modern missiles and drones mean that any NATO surface ships are likely to take a one-trip to the bottom of the Baltic if it becomes a war zone.
LOL, you have so little knowledge of actual capabilities.
Yes, WW2 was 80 years ago, but many in the west are trying to rewrite history.
If you doubt that consider, this “Canadian hero” who was given a standing ovation at the parliament in Ottawa. Some of his compatriots were guards at Auschwitz and other death camps.
At the same time, Russian veterans are banned from attending the commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army.
Given Boris Johnson’s battle cry to defend “western hegemony”, the inconvenient truth is that WW2 was all about defeating western hegemony–western hegemony led from Berlin.
Perhaps that explains the effort rewrite history to make people who fought with the Germans the “good guys”.
The US Navy has been unable to protect shipping through the Red Sea from rag-tag rebels with access to second-hand Iranian missiles and drones.
NATO war ships are unlikely to survive even a few hours in a major conventional war in the Baltic.
Russia also wants us to forget that the war started with them and Germany cooperating and both attacking Poland.
The soviets were not “the good guys”
The Soviets were our allies in WW2. The Germans and Japanese were our enemies.
WW2 ended with victorious US and Soviet forces meeting in central Germany, not German and Japanese forces meeting in the Urals.
were they Poland’s allies? Did they fight the Nazi’s in Poland in 1939? No, they were Nazi Germany’s partner at the time.
and what do you mean “our”? aren’t you typing from your little cubicle in the wagner troll farm in st petersburg?
There were no good guys, but the US and UK chose to fight with Stalin instead of Hitler. In retrospect, that was the right choice in my opinion.
I actually have sympathy for people like Hunka. The choice between Hitler and Stalin was not an obvious one at the time. That does not mean we should be celebrating his military service in the Waffen SS.
Many years ago, I got to know a Polish Army veteran from WW2. He spent 1939 to 1941 in a Soviet POW camp. After the German invasion he escaped to live out the war in his village in the Carpathian Mountains of southeastern Poland.
Soon after the end of the war, his Polish commanding officer showed up in the village with troops from the new Polish government. The people of the village had to move 600 miles away to the land confiscated from Germany.
All the people of Rusyn or Ukrainian background had to leave the area, which had become a refuge for Bandera’s forces who were still fighting the Soviets. Removing the entire civilian population was a crude but effective method of winning a guerrilla war.
yes, Genocide is cruel but effective. The soviets were masters of it, russians still are.
Population transfers were considered business-as-usual until the late 1940’s. The US has done the same sort of thing, especially for non-white population. If you doubt that, just consider the history of reservations for native Americans and the Japanese internment camps in WW2.
Now population transfers are classified as ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Yeah. We look kindly at the Trail of Tears these days.
True. An exception may be for Israel, which wants to be grandfathered into the old ways of dealing with a hostile indigenous population.
As far as central and eastern Europe, WW1, WW2, NATO’s post-Cold-War interventions, etc. have broken up the old German, Austria, Russian, and Ottoman empires into a large number of small, ethnically homogenous states. Population transfers and border adjustments involved tens of millions of people. Many of the changes would arguably fall under the modern definition of genocide, but only people in former Yugoslavia seem to be required to follow the new rules.
The US and its allies get to make and break the rules with impunity, which is why Washington loves the “rules-based international order”.
and yet russia is still doing it
The argument that because historically governments did ■■■■■■ things to marginalized people… they should be able to continue to do ■■■■■■ things to marginalized people is quite funny.
not “governments” just russia
The NATO chief is saying that Ukraine should be allowed to use NATO-supplies missiles to hit Russia. Of course NATO-supplied missiles usually come with NATO-supplied contractors for targeting and maintaining them.
Russia has already warned that Russia could hit targets in Britain and France if their missiles hit Russia.
Another possible response is for Russia to provide missiles and contractors to hostile forces near US military bases. There is no shortage of possible targets.
doesn’t russia hit ukraine from russia with iranian and nk missiles?
good luck with that
they already do
I have seen no evidence that Russia has used Iranian or NK missiles in Ukraine. Nevertheless, the US has hit Iran many times with air strikes. If Iranian missiles hit the US from bases in Latin America, what would the US response be?
The basic problem is NATO missile stocks are already very low, and Russia has already developed effective countermeasures against them. Any high-intensity conventional war would either end in a rapid NATO defeat or rapid escalation to thermonuclear war.
iranian missiles just hit a us base in jordan fired by iranian contracted terrorists… did we attack iran?
