How Should We Respond to Russia's Nuclear Blackmail? | Making Sense  

cause they simply oppose any decision of the current government. they will partner up with the devil himself, if he will be against the ruling party) appeasers, they never change mate

This might shock you, but Vietnam does not border the US.

What would have happened if the Soviets sent jets and missiles to a country that is on the borders of the US , well we already know the answer to that don't we.

@@laza6141They would do nothing, because the Soviets sent advanced fighter jets to communist countries bordering the US? The country is even still communist and the US haven't invaded.

@@laza6141 you mean Cuba?

Why do you want WW3?

​​@@priapulidabecause he's a delusional American

Are you familiar w the term spheres of influence? Power on earth is a 0 sum game. You have to make a decision on a world run by western Europe and the US, OR China, Russia, and Iran. Doing nothing means siding with actual authoritarian genocidal communists. It sucks but that is the way of the world. Russia having military bases parked on western Europe's back yard is objectively bad for the planet. The oceans are not moats. If the world order is sufficiently frayed then they will come for us.

Because it is a bluff and blackmail. Nukes hurt Russia equally, and Putin has alot more to lose than to gain by their use, as does everyone under Putin who would be needed to carry out those orders

@@priapulida For it to be WW3 Russia would need allies and or a strong military. They have neither. What we have instead is a pathetic shell of a country throwing its toys. They're lucky their threats are just being ignored.

Good that our politicians are so honest and sincere ;)

This is political analysis befitting a child. I don't mind disagreement, but can it have some thought to it?

​@@Jole30by comparison with him

@@iporik5215 by comparison to Western leaders he is an embodiment of honesty, competence and integrity, the differences are so obvious

what do you mean not sincere?

🎯

It is, to stop russian imperialism is the answer

Because escalating wars against nuclear world powers is always really smart right??

@@FreefallSC vs kneeling to them?

@@FreefallSC only if you don't have nukes as well

Lol perfect description for it, I haven't heard the term salami tactics before but it fits the tactics well. This is the fear that South Korea has with North Korea. A full scale invasion by the North would be impossible, but nuclear weapons allows them to get away with smaller attacks. For example they flew a drone over South Korea multiple times, and the next fear is that they might do a test detonation in the ocean that could wipe out South Korea's internet access. Nuclear weapons give you free shielding to commit smaller crimes.

The Soviet Union fell over 40 years ago. Russia isn't the Soviet Union. Sam is so glib that he believes Russia can't defeat Ukraine but somehow they can take all of Europe. You people are living in la la land.

72 hours🤔

WTF. Bring back the Spanish Flu too!

@@buckchile614 it never left. I had H1N1 as a kid. I'm fine.

When this was announced, I remember they were planning at the time a deployment in spring 2024

​@@charlesguerrette2996oh okay. I just couldn't remember if I had heard a estimated deployment time for them. Thanks 🙂

lol what?

@@wasdwasdedsf He's insane.

​@@highlight1104he really wants to see mushroom clouds doesnt he 😂

Why do you want WW3?

I doooo 👋 ​@@priapulida

@@priapulida no. Putin is a bitch, but he isn’t going to launch a nuke

be honest do you get paid being a russian bot?@@priapulida

No one is saying that. They're saying that it's a Putin bluff.@@priapulida

🤘

lol

they have engaged in discussions and collaborations on various platforms.

Their isn’t an islimization of Europe @marydavis8903….. You have influenced by bullshit Try and educate yourself

Son of hamas?

So EU has a right to invade Russia, because Russia has weapons on its borders? 😂

@@jeremytine EU is not a major world power , do they even have a military ?

@@laza6141 so your moral framework is might makes right?

@@jeremytine Absolutely not , there is nothing moral about it , but it's what great powers do.

@@laza6141 then who cares what Pitler wants? I mean the USA and EU will just do what they want if that's just what powers do.

Serious question: where do you see bots? People always say this and there never are any. I see geopolitically informed people and those with opinions like Sam's

And another serious question: where do you see desperation in P.? have you listened to him, like at all? He seems rightfully confident.

And what collapse? Certainly not Russia, even Western MSM admit so. The West is collapsing.

​@@priapulidadelulu ru 🤖

@@uschurch I'm neither of these things, and what I said is identical to what all serious geopolitical experts say and by now even some Western MSM

No he doesn't. It is only the Western leaders who seem like they want this.

Nice fantasy world you're living in.

@@priapulida whatever you say russian bot

@@DavidTa2 I'm neither russian or a bot. I'm a concerned, pacifist citizen of Germany. Muting you now, troll.

@@priapulida Bot or useful idiot? Neither is a purposeful life.

They don't. Why do you want WW3?

I don’t .. I am showing

@@priapulida You moved on too the next move

@@priapulida Mad has been our savior

@@priapulida Do you understand?

They didn't invade a country . Self defense.

I don't remember Israel doing "nuclear blackmail." Once they do, then we'll see what Sam has to say about it.

@@waitaminute2015 eastern ukrainina regions voted about 100% to join russia, cause they had a war fought on them by ukraine. self defense

@@wasdwasdedsf1) it was a vote under occupation 2) many who would have voted against fled their homes or were scared 3) ukraine didn't start a war against donbas... Russia invaded in 2014 and cooked it up.. and invaded crimea. Ukraine was the one defending. I bet you think Putin's elections are never rigged 😂

@@jeremytine "1) it was a vote under occupation" th eonly ones whos been occupying those lands are the puppet government of ukraine who waged a war on the population, hence why they voted by 100% to join them... since hes such a bad leader and a terrible terrible mustashe man, i wonder how even western polling agencies claim his popularity is in the 80s, while ours is in the 30s...

Who’s Norman Finkelstein?

@@DanSk451 he’s the guy that rants about Israel killing journalists, but defends Russian warmongering and ISIS killing Charlie Hebdo Journalists.

@@DanSk451 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-te1y7ahp2LQ.htmlsi=Ax6-ShneE3wU6N1f

That fraud? he was wrong on every point. Repeated russian propaganda points every time. He is no scolar but typical anti west edge lord.

@@jjreddick377 Ahh, Ty.

Why? Isn't that a thing?

@@tayler2396he was drawing a parallel in ideological death cult thinking. You’ll live, hope you feel better soon 💪

@@mikebasketball11 I think maybe you're replying to the wrong person or else you're confused.

He doesn't read much when it comes to geopolitics. Since that is not his field of interest, he fills the gaps in his knowledge with religion.

@@tayler2396 My bad, meant to reply to Kassa's OG comment. Have a good one

.....they have kept the peace for 60 yrs. How many nukes does Russia have compared to the US?

Who cares?

@@grddavis obviously Russia. If we get bases on their border I don’t blame them for wanting bases on ours. Of course if they tried that it would never be allowed. Putin has been far more reasonable given these threats than the US would have been for sure.

@@FreefallSCyep absolutely

@@FreefallSC Then how come they gave zero fucks about the baltics, Finland and Sweden joining NATO? Maybe it's because he knows it's not actually dangerous to Russia? Maybe it's politically beneficial to say it is a threat to Russia when it's not? Because no matter what you say, NATO invading Russia is never happening. And you would know this, if you weren't a complete idiot.

Just to clarify, you’re saying claims of nuclear retaliation aren’t blackmail?

He is crying that he will use nukes if he doesn't get his way. His message is stulid and evil.

@@tejasnair3399 The west is the aggressor and he is warning them. Ru. has the right to defend itself.

That makes no sense at all.

@@tejasnair3399 Russia has the right to defend itself.

Bot or troll?

Dude is a democrat shill. Hurts to see what he has become as someone who used to think of him as a genuine intellectual to be taken seriously on topics. Just ol “Deep State Sam” now.

Crazy that I used to take this guy as a serious intellectual to be respected on the things he speaks about. Now he is just a Democratic shill that carries water for the party. Ol “Deep State Sam”

@@grddavis worse, your mom.

Oh noes :(

So honest is just agreeing with you? 🤔

No, he isn’t being honest because I know he is smart enough to know how we got here. It’s been covered extensively and to pretend like this wasn’t the US and NATO forcing action from Russia by threatening military bases on their border is just being disingenuous. You know, the exact border they have been invaded through repeatedly and last time it happened it cost them over 15% of their population. Can’t imagine why they would be nervous about that….

@@FreefallSC I thought Russia was saving the Ukraine from Nazis?

@@FreefallSC which is ludicrous Putin propaganda. No one was threatening to invade Russia, the country with the most nukes on earth, lol. Your sovereignty ends at your border. Russia's biggest threats are from within, not without. Russia is a threat to it's neighbors, not the other way around.

@@FreefallSC are you gonna provide any evidence or you just gonna whine in the comments? And of course comparing the WW2 to the current day is just pure gold - of course the US and NATO are pretty much nazis who are desperate to wipe out most of the russians xD

right? it's like he's trying to be as irrational and uncritical as he can be

Sincere question: What strikes you as non-critical here?

@@steve-adams every single word

@@priapulida ah, I see. Then nothing. Got ya

@@Rhimeson Clearly not. No serious geopolitical expert agrees with anything being said here. Muting you now, troll.

Good luck with that

Thank you, Boris. Turn out the lights at the anti- military/industrial complex party because the left drank all the good stuff. Same at the Big Pharma party as well. Always late and on the wrong side of history is the right.

define "unnecessary"

@@busTedOaS Propping up one of the most corrupt countries in the world, led by a literal comedian.

@@busTedOaS unnecessary - when there is no logical, sensible or intelligent reason to sacrifice lives, limbs and treasure. for example, a scenario where the US goes to war in 2024 to protect and maintain dictatorships for their oil or to keep that flow of oil unimpeded when we know there are massive untapped reserves of oil in the US rivaling that of Saudi Arabia’s or Russia’s. In addition, the breakthroughs in the US with fusion energy assisted by another disruptive technological breakthroughs in artificial intelligence are improving the energy generated by fusion reactors by the day. If we’re talking about rare/precious metals, like lithium or any rare metals, main ingredients for building today’s batteries and semiconductors, the US can look into other friendly nations where we don’t have to place ourselves in direct confrontation with any country that could result in conflict. In the off chance there are no countries willing to trade for these resources, the US has a mature government space program and private industry space exploration firms such as SpaceX that it can always contract to mine for rare metals in the asteroid belt or other places beyond earth estimated to contain deposits of rare metals (lithium, silicon, copper, etc.). expensive, the naysayers will say, but it’s still a whole lot cheaper than getting into wars that lead to destruction and loss of life and the more these efforts are done and result in a new economic activity, the technologies start to cost less overtime. But what about wars to stop massive loss of lives. Bottomline, post-world war 2, if countries are not adequately equipped to defend themselves to the point they can bloody the nose of or decisively defeat a far greater powerful adversary on their own, I’m sorry, unless you’re a State or territory of the United States, the United States has no obligation whatsoever to expend its people, wealth or resources to defend this country. The US literally has no longer any reason to go to war in 2024 and beyond unless it is for the direct defense of the States and territories against an adversary or group of adversaries identified beyond a doubt after careful and thoughtful investigation and inquiry and if every other scenarios proving foul play or conspiracy have all been exhausted and ruled out.

@@user-ko3tv7jl2r that's called an example

Thats a bad argument. Surely there are things in once's upbringing that match with the truth. Are you sure youre not being swayed by your insistance on not being swayed by your upbringing?

Russia has been at war nonstop for 500 years and waged war all around the planet

like what?

@@jjreddick377 they have successfully defended themselves you mean. What you're referring to is the US empire strategy

Campaign terror? 🤣🤣🤣 Troll fail! Bro - you gotta do better than that.