Wandering Off Topic

[Wonderfulspam]

In the early-21st century, especially following the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, relations became strained. In the early years of David Cameron as UK prime minister, there was a brief uptick in relations, up until 2014.[3] Since 2014, relations have grown increasingly unfriendly due to the Russo-Ukrainian War (2014?present) and the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in 2018. In the wake of the poisoning, 28 countries expelled suspected Russian spies acting as diplomats.[4] In June 2021, a confrontation occurred between HMS Defender and the Russian Armed Forces in the 2021 Black Sea incident.

Since 2014. See what you're saying there?  You're agreeing with me. No real threat to the UK, prior to 2014.

[Wonderfulspam]

I mean your argument is a tad on the weak side if I ask you what threat Russia was as of 2012 & you reply with a wiki copy & paste that says there was an uptick in relations until 2014. So, relations were reasonable/good. Until the illegal US backed coup in Ukraine that started a civil war. Then suddenly, after that, Putin gets painted as Saddam Hussein. Did you believe Putin was Hitler before 2014 or might it have started around then?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Since 2014. See what you're saying there?  You're agreeing with me. No real threat to the UK, prior to 2014.

Have you heard of the Cold War, or the Cuban missile crisis or the fact that the Soviet Union came close to annihilating the West with a nuclear strike in the  mid 80s?  Did you read the first part of thr quote I posted? 

?In the early-21st century, especially following the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, relations became strained?

All of these things pre-date 2014.

[Wonderfulspam]

Have you heard of the Cold War, or the Cuban missile crisis or the fact that the Soviet Union came close to annihilating the West with a nuclear strike in the  mid 80s?  Did you read the first part of thr quote I posted? 

?In the early-21st century, especially following the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, relations became strained?

All of these things pre-date 2014.

I've heard of them all. But the Soviet Union ended in 1991. Post 1991, no threat from Russia. No need for NATO.  Poisoning spies doesn't constitute an attack against the UK really does it.

[Wonderfulspam]

We still haven't established in what way Russia would actually benefit from attacking NATO countries? I can't think of anything.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I've heard of them all. But the Soviet Union ended in 1991. Post 1991, no threat from Russia. No need for NATO.  Poisoning spies doesn't constitute an attack against the UK really does it.

It does when you have two Russian agents using a deadly nerve agent that even in the tiny amount they brought in could have potentially killed thousands, yes. 
So no need for NATO you say.  That would make Russia very happy.  Why is that then?  Do you not believe that Russia (or should I say Putin) has any desire to regain parts of Europe that were once under Soviet control?  Did they not invade Georgia in 2008?  I expect you have a well worn excuse for that war as well. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

We still haven't established in what way Russia would actually benefit from attacking NATO countries? I can't think of anything.

Russia hasn?t benefited from attacking Ukraine but that didn?t stop them did it?  They have lost hundreds of billions of roubles fighting an unwinnable war and had hundreds of billions of assets frozen in the West. Nice one Putin,he?s almost as dumb as his pal in the White House..

[Wonderfulspam]

Russia hasn?t benefited from attacking Ukraine but that didn?t stop them did it?  They have lost hundreds of billions of roubles fighting an unwinnable war and had hundreds of billions of assets frozen in the West. Nice one Putin,he?s almost as dumb as his pal in the White House..

That assumes Russia attacked Ukraine for economic gain. Rather than supporting Russian speakers in the East. It ignored the reason for the SMO. Demilitarision & denazification. Why do you say the war is Unwinnable? Over 60% of Ukrainians want a negotiatiated settlement to the war, according to the polls.

[Wonderfulspam]

It does when you have two Russian agents using a deadly nerve agent that even in the tiny amount they brought in could have potentially killed thousands, yes. 
So no need for NATO you say.  That would make Russia very happy.  Why is that then?  Do you not believe that Russia (or should I say Putin) has any desire to regain parts of Europe that were once under Soviet control?  Did they not invade Georgia in 2008?  I expect you have a well worn excuse for that war as well.

No. I don't believe for one minute that Russia is seeking to occupy east Germany I'm afraid. Due to the complete absence of evidence they intend to do so.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That assumes Russia attacked Ukraine for economic gain. Rather than supporting Russian speakers in the East. It ignored the reason for the SMO. Demilitarision & denazification. Why do you say the war is Unwinnable? Over 60% of Ukrainians want a negotiatiated settlement to the war, according to the polls.

You?re assuming Russia would not attack Europe because of economics though, that was your argument.  60% of Ukranians do not want to cede any part of their country to Russia, unless you can show me otherwise?  What would a win look like for Russia in your view?

[Vertigo Swirl]

No. I don't believe for one minute that Russia is seeking to occupy east Germany I'm afraid. Due to the complete absence of evidence they intend to do so.

I?ve re-read my post and, nope I definitely didn?t mention Germany, so once again you?re playing the strawman.  Why do you deliberately twist what I wrote?  You really are a most dishonest debater.

[Wonderfulspam]

You?re assuming Russia would not attack Europe because of economics though, that was your argument.  60% of Ukranians do not want to cede any part of their country to Russia, unless you can show me otherwise?  What would a win look like for Russia in your view?

Not just economics but because there was no good reason to. How would Russia have benefited from attacking European & Nato countries, their energy customers, prior to 2014? Even post 2022, it wouldn't be in Russia's interest to attack NATO & draw them further into the conflict. So why would they do it?

[Wonderfulspam]

I?ve re-read my post and, nope I definitely didn?t mention Germany, so once again you?re playing the strawman.  Why do you deliberately twist what I wrote?  You really are a most dishonest debater.

Ok so which former Soviet countries (like East Germany) do you believe Russia intends to attack & occupy & for what reason?

[Wonderfulspam]

Russia's military is roughly 1m + around 1m reservists. NATO, 3.5m + reservists. So, whilst currently bogged down in East Ukraine, I'm not really sure it would make much sense for Russia to attack NATO, the larger army, trigger article 5 & expand the war. So, I wonder why VS believes it likely, despite it being completely illogical, that Russia would attack NATO? Probably because she's been conditioned to believe that Putin = Hitler & Russia = Bad. Glugging down the NATO cool aid as she accuses me of believing Russian propaganda.

[Wonderfulspam]

It does when you have two Russian agents using a deadly nerve agent that even in the tiny amount they brought in could have potentially killed thousands, yes. 
So no need for NATO you say.  That would make Russia very happy.  Why is that then?  Do you not believe that Russia (or should I say Putin) has any desire to regain parts of Europe that were once under Soviet control?  Did they not invade Georgia in 2008?  I expect you have a well worn excuse for that war as well.

Georgia started war with Russia: EU-backed report

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/georgia-started-war-with-russia-eu-backed-report-idUSTRE58T4MO/