SlowFlowPro

quote:

---

he worked out well enough for Nick Saban not to run him of

---

I don't think this is how Bama fans describe it

quote:

---

How many chips he winning?

---

How many has VTech ever won?

quote:

---

Do people believe that the United States' stance on never expanding NATO was sincere?

---

What official treaty or agreement records this?

quote:

---

Talking about the stupid shite in 2022 during the start of the Ukrainian conflict.

---

Based on this premise

quote:

---

you have to remain neutral

---

We were NEVER neutral

How were we neutral during the Cold War?

How did we do economically during the Cold War and after?

Probably at some point, but the world would collapse and devolve multiple centuries worth of progress to get there. Like the 1000 years in Europe after the fall of the Western Roman empire.

quote:

---

America's debt in 1991= 3.5 TRILLION
USSR debt in 1991= 63 BILLION

I think we can make the argument America was more broke and still is compared to the Russians

---

Why did you ignore GDP and PCGDP?

quote:

---

They aren't heavily indebted to a group of bankers like America.

---

What? :lol:

quote:

---

Who are these people?

---

"The Khazars"

-Putin

quote:

---

Putin wanted, based on his words and actions, was become part of the West.

---

Bro

Stop

quote:

---

Create better economic opportunities for his country and prosperity.

---

So the oligarchs who carved up Russia in the preceding decade would just give up all that money and power? Including the dictator Putin? They'd all drop the weird anti-Jewish sentiment?

None of that was ever going to happen

And unless all of that happened, they would never leave their historical backwater and join modernity and develop.

quote:

---

Which is exactly the point: NATO was never simply a “defensive alliance.” Even in 1954, It was a structure. A protection racket. A way to organize Europe under an American strategic roof and to keep it there. If Russia enters that roof as an equal, the architecture changes. Budgets decrease, with less money for the MIC. Threat perceptions change. The entire postwar hierarchy changes.

---

This thesis makes no sense.

Russia would never be close to an equal with the US or most European powers. It's culture is too shitty .

Why would the "power hierarchy" change? Russia doesn't have the ability to be that powerful. It's been surpassed economically by several former satellite nations (via the EU, not NATO, even though I expect conflation on that distinction).

We could buttfrick Russia today in short order with our conventional military.

quote:

---

This was not Russia begging to be absorbed. The consistent theme in contemporaneous accounts is conditionality, that Russia could consider joining if treated as an equal partner, but not as a defeated province invited into the emperor’s club after proving it can submit.

---

That is inevitable. Russia WAS a defeated province. They have structural problems that prohibit it ever becoming an equal, unless they tear down its society to the studs. By 2001, the oligarchy had already created a full kleptocracy, as well. They control Russia. You think they would give up their wealth to permit Russia to develop properly? After 500 years of Russian history showing that isn't possible?

quote:

---

So the West did what empires do when presented with a peace that would reduce their leverage:

It smiled, took notes, and kept moving.

---

"The West" is not an empire. Jesus Christ.

What a retarded "argument"

quote:

---

The Atlantic system wanted Russia as a managed periphery, permanently “integrating,” permanently reforming, permanently conceding, never truly sovereign in security decisions.

---

AKA, they would have to reject their stone age culture and join modernity?

Do you live in D'Iberville, MS and were you walking in your boxers and a 1/5 in your front yard last night?