So why shouldn't the UK and the US go to war with Russia?

originally posted by: the3amigos
In the 1850s the UK and France went to war with Russia to stop Russian expansionism in the Black Sea area. Russia invaded Ukraine and took land. This violates world peace. So why shouldn't the US and the UK enter the war and drive Russians out of Donba and Crimea?

I am assuming you want to go and die in Donbass and would be happy for all your family and friends to do likewise?

War is always the worst possible solution to a problem. They ultimately solve nothing. They just get lots and lots and lots of people killed whilst those who start them (and could prevent them occurring, if they were so inclined*) sit at home sipping champagne.


* there are, of course, reasons why such people want wars and it's mostly about making money for themselves - it's never about helping other people!

I think they should go to war.

Then nukes will fly and the US and UK will be no more. Would solve a lot of problems in the world.

a reply to: the3amigos

Without Russia's help during the Revolutionary War and the Civil War the USA would probably be vassal state to the UK.

Inspired by the European enlightenment and its philosophers (Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau) as well as supported by the French expeditionary corps, George Washington’s army stood up for the newly-born nation’s very right to exist. After eight years of bloodshed, the United Kingdom eventually recognized America’s independence in 1783; coincidentally, the same year Crimea became a part of the Russian Empire.

However, in the Winter of 1775, victory was far beyond the horizon. Americans were gravely crashed at the Battle of Quebec. A couple of months later, the British were preparing for a counterattack in New York, which later became the most disastrous defeat of the Revolutionary Army over the course of the war. The Americans lost Fort Washington in Autumn 1776 and roughly 3,000 soldiers were taken hostage.

Meanwhile, intending to cut the supply of the rebellious colonies, Britannia tried to impose a naval blockade on the American continent. Being influenced by her correspondence with the French philosophers, an enlightened Russian Empress Catherine the Great from the very start was sympathetic to the Americans fighting for their freedom. Guided by her own country’s national interests, Catherine firmly opposed the British naval blockade. She continued to trade with the 13 former colonies. In 1780 Russia proclaimed the policy of armed neutrality, which meant that its ships would fight back if the British navy tried to stop them from crossing the Atlantic.



More than that, amidst the Revolutionary War George III, the British king, trying to appeal to Catherine’s monarchical sentiments, pleaded her to send 20-thousand Russian expeditionary corps to America to fight against the revolutionaries. The Russian Empress refused. Then the king tried to bribe Catherine by offering an island of Menorca in the Mediterranean Sea in exchange for convincing France to exit the war and thus forcing the American rebels to fight alone. And again, the offer was turned down.

1863, Alexander II sent two Russian fleets under the command of Admirals Lessovski and Popov to New York and San Francisco in order to put pressure on London and fight the British navy if necessary. Russian ships patrolled the American shores for 10 months. Thus, Russia was the first European power, who officially supported the Union and President Lincoln. Soon the war was over.

russiancouncil.ru...

I have to wonder what our relations look like if the bolshevics were never empowered in the USA and Russia.

I thought the USSR fell?
Just exactly when does Russia and the USA begin to seek peaceful relations.
The USA probably owes that people for the support we got in pursuit of our Independence.

Why is the pursuit of mass death in wars so important to you op?
Is there something more you want than just a lot of needless death?

I think the USA should learn to stay in its lane like it's original Constitutional mandates.

F*** globalism already

a reply to: the3amigos

Global thermonuclear war springs to mind.

Poking the bear is one thing mate but Russia's nuclear policy is clear.

originally posted by: the3amigos
a reply to: Boomer1947

It's not like nuclear weapons would be used.

It just won't be a proper war if nukes aren't used. Why the halfassed approach?

originally posted by: Maybenexttime
I think they should go to war.

Then nukes will fly and the US and UK will be no more. Would solve a lot of problems in the world.

It really would solve ALL the worlds problems, like over population, food shortages, global warming, melting ice caps. Oh I nearly forgot, it would also f### up ALL living creatures on the planet including man kind. Get out of your moms basement and see the real world.

originally posted by: WaESN
War is always the worst possible solution to a problem. They ultimately solve nothing.

Going to war against Nazi Germany that was trying to take over Europe sure was a solution to the Hitler problem.

a reply to: the3amigos
I think the OP should read "Why should the UK and USA go to war with Russia. I remember a famous quote, it went something like this "It's better to jaw jaw than war war" and when you understand that you'll understand what NEEDS to be done.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

That was a different Russia.

a reply to: crayzeed

Or just watch "Threads".

Where the island was pretty much "well done".

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

That was a different Russia.

Different USA also.
Some cultures carry animosities over many generations.
Others do not.

The key is recognizing the one/s that do.

They like wars.
Wars where their enemies fight each other, not they, themselves.

Russia and the USA share way more in common through the centuries than they have animosities.
We even share common enemies. And those that hate us for centuries old grudges.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

It's the current governments that are at odds with each other and not necessarily the people. I have friends from most of my country's list of enemies.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: SteamyAmerican
Not our circus, not our monkeys.

Unless you have children working in Ukraine as so many career US politicians do. Or an interest in the MIC.

Hence the $ to fund it...

Actually, all 3 of the countries mentioned (plus Ukraine) signed the Budapest Memorandum in which they all agreed to respect the territorial boundaries of Ukraine as they existed in 1991 in return for Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal. All 3 of the nuclear powers (US, UK, Russia) agreed that they would not engage in direct military conflict with each other over this issue, specifically to avoid the possibility of escalating to a nuclear exchange. The US and UK also agreed to provide Assurance to Ukraine that the terms of the agreement would be enforced, short of actually deploying US or UK troops in direct contact with Russian troops. That's the rationale for why we are supplying arms and money to Ukraine right now; it's the price we agreed to pay in order to have one less nuclear-armed country in the world. That's what makes it our circus and our monkeys.

If only posts like this were more common.
Sensible, honest and accurate.

Well done

a reply to: the3amigos

There's a war in Ukraine?

I'm thinking NATO is going to convince Zelensky to give Russia the Russian speaking parts that want to be Russia anyway. Ukraine concedes Maripol but not Odesa. Give him the wrap it up motivation.

Meanwhile, Hamas has defacto declared Jihad on America (which Russia has not), so give Putin his consolation territory card and make it one less proxy war in case we learn how many jihadists came across the border with the fentanyl, in the worst case scenario.

It’s all about control.

They will lead us by the nose down a grey and dreary tunnel, wallpapered with 30 second sound bites in a 24 hour cycle, through life’s wonders, given half a chance.

It’s always about control
a reply to: AwakeNotWoke

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: SteamyAmerican
Not our circus, not our monkeys.

Unless you have children working in Ukraine as so many career US politicians do. Or an interest in the MIC.

Hence the $ to fund it...

Actually, all 3 of the countries mentioned (plus Ukraine) signed the Budapest Memorandum in which they all agreed to respect the territorial boundaries of Ukraine as they existed in 1991 in return for Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal. All 3 of the nuclear powers (US, UK, Russia) agreed that they would not engage in direct military conflict with each other over this issue, specifically to avoid the possibility of escalating to a nuclear exchange. The US and UK also agreed to provide Assurance to Ukraine that the terms of the agreement would be enforced, short of actually deploying US or UK troops in direct contact with Russian troops. That's the rationale for why we are supplying arms and money to Ukraine right now; it's the price we agreed to pay in order to have one less nuclear-armed country in the world. That's what makes it our circus and our monkeys.

Factual posts that make sense.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

There was no land called Ukraine on any map before the 1920's .

Where did you get that nonsense from ?

Here's a map from the book " The Age of Anne " by Edward Ellis Morris which was published in 1877. The map cleary shows Ukraine.

Morris also wrote two small volumes for the "Epochs of Modern History" series, The Age of Anne (1877), and The Early Hanovarians (1886).

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: alldaylong
Did you scan that image out of a physical copy, or did you just find it online? I only ask because I have seen contradictions from scanned files on the internet versus physical copies in my hand in two finance reference volumes on seperate matters.

If I do an online search, I will find a thousand images of maps of Ukraine no doubt going back to before Russia existed. In some cases I can clearly see it was just someone had ran it through a simple editor and added the text themselves. Go to the library, a big one not a small school one. Ask for their oldest atlases or books with old maps. Tell me what you find, because I already did it. I have an old twenties French Atlas of maps from classic to post WW1. None of their maps show that name until after WW1.

Be quick though, TPTB are pulling any books with a contradictory narrative from the past. Good 'ol 1984 style. As you can see, they already control the past on the internet.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation
Don't come down too hard on the op, it may not be real. Opening conversations like these are being asked by the Defense Department to train their social media AI bots. They use ATS as a testing ground because we can provide very thorough, well thought out, and detailed replies using lots of existing data. This teaches the AI with a higher bar, making it super easy to manipulate the less enlightened zombie hordes on the more traditional social media platforms.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

If you need more evidence then take a look at the following link.

www.kbr.be...

Map number 3 for instances states

Lotter Tobias Conrad (1717-1777) from Augsburg, son-in-law of the printer and publisher Matthäus Seutter (1678-1757), printed this map of the Ukrainian region around 1757.

So again, your claim that Ukraine was not shown on any map before the 1920's is false.