The Transfer of a Russian ICBM to North Korea?

How many military bases does Russia have in Mexico?

https://www.forces.net/usa/where-cl...d is less than,territory at a moment's notice.

 

That question seems to make no sense. IOW, since you are wondering if I know anything about this, it would be foolish of you to write your follow up question, as if not only my knowledge is identical to yours, but as if my mind works in the same way, and so would understand your thinking, even if you do not express it in a clear, specific manner. What I have told you, at least three if not four times, is that:
A) Congress voted for the lethal aid.
B) Trump was compelled, then to deliver it.
C) Which he began doing, but before it was all delivered, he put a hold on it. This happened, I believe, shortly after his first phone call with Zalensky.

Now, why the are you confused, about my position? What important aspect, have I left out? Your question, if Trump dragged his feet on the delivery, so that earlier shipments "could get through," makes no sense, at all. So, as I have asked you to do, numerous times, I will ask again, for you to break this question of yours, down into the smallest parts you possiblity can, and explain every one of them, until it would make sense, that earlier shipments would not be able "to get through," unless later payments were stopped. I mean, that makes no sense-- can you not appreciate that? That is why I am allowing for the possibility, that what you actually mean, is not what you seem to have written.

In short though, as should have been understood, since I never suggested otherwise, the answer is no-- shipments were not stopped for some pragmatic reason. The reason, supposedly, they were stopped was because Trump, all of a sudden, started worrying about Ukrainian corruption, and that the weapons weren't getting to their intended destinations. This, however, was an issue, decided on, during Congress's debate. The President really doesn't have the power to second-guess Congressional directives (a.k.a. "laws"). On top of that, I never heard what steps the Trump administration took, to actually investigate Trump's concern. He just stopped making payments to the manufacturers of the weapons, so they stopped making and delivering them. It is very simple and straight forward-- and has no impact on any earlier weapons deliveries. So now, please explain, what is your point?

 

Do you know why Europe strengthened trade with Russia?

It was under the idea that the stronger trade ties were the stronger the relationship was and the more unlikely it would be for any kind of Russian aggression because both sides would lose too much.

Strengthening trade and ties with Russia is not a bad thing it's certainly preferable to what we currently f****** have right now.

So if your idea with this post was to say orange man bad because he wanted to build a hotel in Moscow and have stronger relationship and ties with Russia... I don't know what to tell you except to say you're wrong. And what we currently have right now is horrible. For both sides and especially for Ukraine.

Putin is a horrible leader. He's authoritarian he jails his political opponents if he's not throwing them out 10 story windows or shooting them out of it the skies... But he's Russia's president. And you guys need to figure out that you're not able to choose other countries leaders for them. It's not your job. Your job is to find a way to work with those leaders amicably. Building Bridges in strengthening our nation. Not starting f****** forever wars or funding f****** forever wars.

There were absolutely no wars started in the four years that Trump was in office and he had better relationship with all the enemies that we have in the world and people were safe. And the world prospered.

So again when you try to tell me that Trump having a decent relationship with Putin is a bad thing I'm a little bit confused considering the state of everything right now.

 

Sure. I'm not sure where you are going with this?

 

Please state your argument, then provide the link, to support it. Do not ask an ambiguous question, and then expect the person to whom you are replying, to read through an entire article, to get the answer. I read 10 of its small paragraphs, without any mention of Mexico, or of Russian bases. So I'm done with that.

Another option for you, is to offer a "snip" along with your link. That is, a quotation of the most relevant part, begun with "<Snip>" and finished with "<End Snip>," in order to set it apart. I can go through other ways to provide quoted paragraphs, if that would be helpful, and desired.

 

The only one with a conspiracy theory is you. First showing edited videos now claiming something I never said.

 

Since these strengthened trade ties, to which you refer, did not deter Russia from taking over Crimea, or starting aggressions in numerous smaller countries, even before invading Ukraine, that would seem to show that the "idea," had been wrong.

It should also be noted, that this is the same principle-- of costing Russia, economically-- behind sanctions, which Putin has also shown, he is willing to put up with. So, it should be abundantly apparent, to anyone, that economics is not Putin's principal barometer for measuring his actions.

This thread has nothing to do with Trump. The post you are answering, had you looked at the quote to which it was replying, you'd have seen, was to another sad poster, who had to try to bring Trump into the thread (though it is these Trump fans, who are always claiming that it is people on the Left, who have to bring up Trump, in threads that have nothing to do with him). In one of the very first posts, FMW said that those Russia-friendly posters are actually Russians. I'd answered that I thought that was probably often the case, but that for some reason, there is overlap between MAGA and having a more positive opinion of Putin. I'd backed up my opinion by citing Tucker Carlson and Trump, as two non Russians, who seemed to be fans of Putin's. My merely saying that, led Joe Knows to try to defend Trump and discredit Biden. And my post was only refuting his. It was not intended, to become a running part of the thread.

As I need to get going, and your post has yet to come to any point, really relevant to the thread-- though I acknowledge your at least trying, with your economic ties argument, even though it does not work well when a country's main exports are commodities, for which it will always find a buyer, so that this interdependence would naturally be seen by Putin, as only additional leverage he would gain, with Europe's added vulnerability to his turning off the gas, so to speak-- I am going to leave my reply here, and look at (& presumably respond to) the rest of your reply, in my next post.

 

Russia would not give North Korea operational control of nuclear weapons.

 

So you've said. But North Korea already has nuclear weapons (and so operational control of them). What you apparently mean, is that they would not help advance North Korea's nuclear arsenal. I think this story puts that assumption, very much in question.

 

I apologize for the confusion.
I was attempting a response to your question regarding whether Russia's recent transactions with North Korea has affected "the warm regards held by any of our Russia-friendly members?"

Imho, Russia's SMO in Ukraine and its cooperation with NK are directed against the US attempt at regime change in Moscow regardless of how many Ukrainians (or Koreans) have to become dead, maimed, or displaced; the US has surrounded Russia with military bases while Russia has not reciprocated in Mexico or Canada, so I'm left wondering how many Americans are willing to admit their country'$ desire for full $pectrum dominance drive$ the violence in Ukraine just as it did over the last 75 years from Korea to Kandahar?

 

You are only parroting the Kremlin pretext for its invasion-- euphemistically referred to by you, as well, as a Special Military Operation-- that Western countries (NATO) threaten it, rather than that their motivation is only defensive, against Russian invasion, er, I mean, Russian SMOs. If we look at the history of the new world order which arose from the ashes of Second World War, how many times has Europe, the U.S., or Canada invaded Russia? And how many times has Russia/Soviet Russia used military force to subjugate the countries at its borders?

Secondly, Russia is the largest country on Earth. It sits on and overlaps the edge between Europe and Asia. As such, the countries which it borders, are legion. I suppose it is Russia's position that none of those countries should be allowed to ally with America, for their own defense, but must remain vulnerable to attack?

 

That is generally how Chris prefers to keep it, in my experience.

 

Russia has used force to protect its borders fewer times than the US has invaded, occupied, and destroyed countries like Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya with much of the African continent awaiting its turn in the capitalist's bulls-eye.

As I understand the difference between a SMO and a war, the latter in Ukraine would see a campaign of shock and awe similar to what Americans inflicted on Iraq. Zelensky would not be living in a Presidential Palace (if at all), bridges would be mostly a thing of the past (along with electricity for 90% of civilians), and Ukrainian casualties would be even higher than their current levels. I suppose those who believe the US pretexts for overthrowing a democratically elected president in 2014 have a different perspective?

 

Actually, at this point, Putin may really, really need North Korea. Just heard Tony Blinken, from his visit in Ukraine, say that Russia was "desperate"-- his word-- for ammunition. It turns out that N. Korea has huge stockpiles, and it is all usable, as is, with Russian weapon systems. Putin will reportedly be meeting with Kim Jong-un, next week.

This missile story, could be part of a quid pro quo. I'm sure, at this point, not losing Russia's foothold in Ukraine is more important than just about any other concern, in Putin's eyes.

 

The nuclear capability of North Korea is actually unknown. It’s all just speculation.

 

It is Russia's size and material resources that western investors are anxious to take control of. This is nothing new. Operation Red Sox in 1949 began the project to destabilize the USSR with the target switching to Russia after 1991. Countries bordering Russia would have little to fear if the US would stop interfering in their internal domestic affairs.

https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...on-ukrainian-independence-haunts-cia-00029968

 

No. As I tried to make clear the issue is trying to mate KN warheads to a Russian missile not just the number of missiles provided. As per the article there are only three broad scenarios. 1) Russia provides NK with a limited number of advanced missiles sans nuclear warheads and/or with their payload replaced by conventional explosives. (If it's the latter there's no immediate shift in the balance of power because Kim already has a large conventionally armed missile force.) If the former it does NK little good because of the technical issues I noted previously. By the time they figured out how to mate their bomb to a Russian missile they will have developed their own system anyway 2) Russia provides a limited number of missiles with nuclear warheads attached. China would strongly oppose this move. Meanwhile South Korea and Japan would go 'ape ****' and in theory could triple the level of military support Ukraine is receiving by way of retaliation. Russia desperately needs Chinese support and doesn't want to piss off SK or Japan more than necessary. End of story. 3) Russia provides 'technical assistance' instead to NKs nuclear weapons program which speeds up the development of a domestic NK nuclear deterrent. This still takes time and see point (2) Above.

In summery the provision of a limited number of missiles makes little difference to the overall scenario int he Korean Peninsula other than creating more instability. And of key importance Russia doesn't have more than a small number of such missiles to spare anyway due to the war. Hell the only reason Putin is trying to do a deal with Kim int he first place is that Russia can't even produce enough bog standard 'dumb' artillery shells to support its war effort. All the evidence suggests it's supply situation re; advanced systems like ICBMS and advanced cruise missiles etc is even more desperate.

Again until I see evidence of transfer of Topols to KN my previous points stand. NK still has to adapt its own (untested and unproven) Ballistic nuclear warhead to the Russian missile. As I noted previously rocketry is not Lego. You can't click, connect and then 'play'. I would also note NK desperately needs food deliveries and those Russia can provide in cheaply and in abundance. And to the extent other nations in the region were watching such deliveries there's every chance they would be seen as a stabilizing measure. Tentatively both SK and Japan would probably approve of foods deliveries even if they don't say so publicly. After all they aren't the ones who have to fork up the money to pay for the food transfers.

 

Yes, it shows how hollowed out the Russian defense industries have become. Artillery and mortar shells are about as basic as they get and obviously Russian domestic production can't keep up. Which doesn't bode well for other more complex systems like vehicles and aircraft etc. Russia also became reliant on western electronics in the 2000's so all those Russia 'super' weapons Putin liked to boast about i.e the Armarta, the SU-35, the Burevestnik cruise missile? They're all destined to remain nothing but press releases for at least a decade.

The US and NATO had a similar problems of course having failed to stockpile sufficient artillery shells or order sufficient production runs from local suppliers prior to the current war (courtesy of the post Soviet 'peace dividend' thanks very much) but at least they've reacted with huge new orders going in and production is accelerating across the western world. Russia obviously doesn't have the capacity to do the same and China won't supply munitions which leaves it going cap in hand to NK.

 

Well when you said: "That missile that Russia gave to North Korea has gone against the Patriot system and lost." What did you mean by "gone against?" In some sort of simulation or something which tested their respective performance?

 

Okay, now what is the timeline for this? Starting and ending in which years?

 

You said that what was missing is my "supporting evidence, that Trump asked Congress, to fund/approve deadly military aid for Ukraine." So when you said that, were you not under the impression that I made such a claim?

 

Come on. Do you seriously believe that what Congress passes has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with who is in the White House?

 

Yes-- if you want to continue this, beyond what I had said leading up to that comment. CONTEXT, Chris! Context:

DEFinning said: ↑
No "grappling" required. The answer is: because Congress, under Obama, did not pass any legislation mandating this-- as it did, under Trump.
<End Snip>

All right, that was in answer to a question from you, that you can look up, yourself, if you like. It was something like "why didn't Obama supply the lethal aid that Trump did?" And that 1st sentence is the answer, in a nutshell: the aid got supplied, when Congress approved it. Who was sitting in the White House, at the time, was only incidental. End of your argument, that Trump was more anti-Russian, based on something that Congress did, without Trump's encouragement.

Now, continuing my comment:

DEFinning said: ↑
I acknowledge that Obama did not ask Congress to do so, but I assert that neither did Trump.
<End Snip>

So, the only thing distinguishing them, AFAIK, is that Congress gave this task to Trump, but hadn't given it to Obama. Was my meaning not clear to you? My explanation seems as straightforward as possible. Help me, by explaining, where you'd got pointed in the wrong direction.

So, I think this had been my reply to your asking for something more from me, to prove something, that there was no need for me to prove because, as I just showed you, once again, your presumption of Trump having shown more spine against Russia, was a false concept. They were on an even level. Therefore, if you want to continue to expect me to prove things, based on this narrative that you have been using, of Trump being tougher on Russia:

DEFinning said: ↑
So what is missing, here, is not more sources, or explanations, from me, but your supporting evidence, that Trump asked Congress, to fund/approve deadly military aid for Ukraine.
<End Snip>

IOW, if you showed that I had been mistaken, so that Trump HAD requested this aid from Congress, when I just acknowledged that Obama did not, that would validate the superior position, which you had been, all along, casting Trump as occupying. But if you can't show me that-- then there is no need for me to show you anything, because there's no reason to think any differently of the two, regarding the aid to Ukraine. Neither one asked for it; only Trump, was tasked, by Congress, to deliver it.



Now look at all that writing, Chris-- to explain, what had been pretty clear, to begin with. This must have taken me a half an hour. And look at how much typing you had done. This is the situation that gets under my skin. You don't seem to put enough effort into either trying to understand things, or trying to make sure that you will be understood. You type a few words, only, and leave it to me to both figure out what is the confusion, as well as to then re-explain everything to you. It cuts too much, into my sleep time. Please try harder, both to be clear about what you're trying to say, but also on the score of figuring things out, when my meaning is not immediately apparent to you.

Have you noticed, when I've been in that position, I have, when possible, gone through potential options, asking if you had meant this, or meant that? That is to make it easier for you, if I come close, in one of my guesses, to what you were either asking or telling me.


EDIT: And now I see that, while I had been typing all of this for you, you've posted me again, showing that you'd understood my meaning, that I just spent 45 minutes explaining to you. Why could you have not made both of those, part of one post?

 

We might as well close the argument with this final nail in your argument 'coffin':

"Trump had been considering the plan for some time after the State Department and the Pentagon signed off earlier this year." https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/23/us-officials-say-lethal-weapons-headed-to-ukraine.html

"State Department and the Pentagon." So NOT only Congress was involved. They could only pass the funding after the sign-off from the State Department and the Pentagon.

Here is what seems BLATANTLY clear to me: you do not, under ANY circumstance, want to give Trump credit for ANYTHING! And you will go to ANY length to avoid doing so! It's hard to believe that you were actually tossing up whether or not to vote for him in 2020, creating a thread in order to get advice from your fellow members!

 

Well if Putin/Prigozhin/Kadyrov on the one side or Ilhan Omar/BLM/BDS the leaders of both ideologies are straight evil. In fact Putin's regime is a constant reminder, why you have to nip that madness in the bud and dont act when its too late and the AOCs, Omars etc. gained enough power.

I am not disappointed that leftist idiots are incapable of seeing what they are dealing with when it comes to Putin calling him a fascist, I am disappointed that people who are on my side against the woke madness are blinded as well.

No matter how incompetent and stupid his own regime may act, its an interesting lesson for me that a gangster will always win over people with a political ideology. It doesnt matter what the IQ of the protagonists is, it doesnt matter what success they had in life, the gangster always wins. Always.

Its incredible how dull, superficial and openly this regime tries to play political fractions on this world against each other, and it works. It works! Russian troll makes up an incident that a white policeman shot a black guy and is successful with it. The very same troll makes up a story of a black man raping a white girl and it works. The far left as well as the far right think Putin is "their" man. When Bolsonaro was in charge for him he played the revenge of the White man, when Lula took over he is the revenge on the White man and overall, dont forget we are the anti-Imperialist Soviets, comrade, viva la revolucion ... and it works. He can convince the Islamist, Russia and its Orthodoxy is similar to Islam and its ally against the West, at the same time he can order air strikes against Islamic Republics, it still works. It works all ways. Its so easy, no raffinesse, no nothing.The lesson to learn here, the mindset of the gangster will always win over the mindset of the ideologue. A gangster with an IQ of 75 can trick every ideologue with an IQ of 160, it doesnt matter, there is a blockade, a defect of reason in the ideologue, a wish which is so strong he isnt even willing to pay attention to realities.

And thats exactly what Putin is. He is a gangster of the worst kind. You can see paralleles to fascist dictators, you can see paralleles to communist disctators as all dictatorships have certain similarity, in the end he is more like Pablo Escobar, Heriberto Lazcano or Nemesio Cervantes with total control over a state like an Adolf Hitler or a Joseph Stalin.

Of course leftist idiots wanna paint him as a fascist, while they support the Lulas, Maduros or Malemas who support his genocide in the Ukraine.