Russian State TV Host Threatens Nuclear War

"The principle is: why do we need the world if Russia won't be in it?" Kiselyov added.

"The principle is: why do we need the world if Russia won't be in it?" Kiselyov added.

The Russian Tucker Carlson?

why do we need the world if Russia won't be in it?

...translation: "why do we need the world if entitled piece of shit fascists like us won't be in it?"...

The quote is quite, "melo—."  Who is the, "we," and where is Russia 'going'? Nowhere. Russia will be present and accountable one way or another. After all, why give up all that real estate its claiming as property?

Talk about missing the mark.

This isn't about Russia still being there in some physical way that the US/NATO will allow. This is about those in power in Russia not feeling safe with potentially an entire western front of heavily armed NATO countries that all hate it. 

See post 3.2 as to why they don't trust the US/NATO. To them we are the bad guys. All over flipping a bunch of Democracy in name only countries to NATO. Countries we would have nothing to do with based on their human rights violations alone; if it weren't for their hatred of Russia. 

Seems we have learned nothing from history.

Ronin2, missing the mark? I think you are too focused on the other narrative @3.2 that you can not see the question to which I was responding on this thread: Why do we need the world if Russia won't be in it?

To which I responded: The quote is quite, "melo—."  Who is the, "we," and where is Russia 'going'? Nowhere. Russia will be present and accountable one way or another. After all, why give up all that real estate its claiming as property?

What is wrong with these people?

What is wrong with these people?

I think you're seeing what true nationalism looks like. What I'm afraid of is this guy said what he did because Putin told him to. I'm afraid that if he can't have the Russia he wants to have then he will use nukes. I have been wondering if he's a smarter version of Trump, in many ways. 

They really, really, really, don't give a fuck about the rest of us. What is so hard to figure out? Either they feel safe or secure; or we all fry. Seems pretty straight forward. It is not like Putin didn't already threaten this.

Russia has been beating the same drum for years. Obama's backing of a coup to overthrow a duly elected pro Russian government set this off. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. Russia will no more tolerate having all NATO countries on it's western border than we would tolerate having a pro heavily armed Russian government in either Canada or Mexico. Don't worry; it isn't Obama's fault alone; the US has been flipping former Soviet states to NATO as fast as possible over the last 40 years. Those that wouldn't flip were broken (Aka Serbia). Despite James Baker's assurance that this wouldn't happen after the fall of the Soviet Union. Bet Russia wishes it had a do over on that. 

theguardian

At one level it narrowly focuses both on verbal commitments made by the US secretary of state James Baker under President George HW Bush and the terms of a treaty signed on 12 September 1990 setting out how Nato troops could operate in the territory of the former East Germany.

Putin claims that Baker, in a discussion on 9 February 1990 with the Soviet leader,   Mikhail Gorbachev , made the promise that Nato would not expand to the east if Russia accepted Germany’s unification.

The following day Chancellor Helmut Kohl, ambiguous about Germany remaining in Nato after unification, also told Gorbachev “naturally Nato could not expand its territory to the current territory of the GDR”. The promise was repeated in a speech by the Nato secretary general on 17 May, a promise cited by Putin in his Munich speech. In his memoirs, Gorbachev described these assurances as the moment that cleared the way for compromise on Germany.

Did Russia see the implications of the 1990 agreement for Warsaw Pact countries?

Yes, many Russian policymakers opposed the concessions being made at the time by Gorbachev in part because of the implications for eastern   Europe . Russia was given verbal assurances about the limits of Nato’s expansion, but no written guarantees. In March 1991 John Major, for instance, was asked by the Soviet defence minister, Marshal Dmitry Yazov, about eastern Europe’s interest in joining Nato. Major, according to the diaries of the British ambassador to Moscow, Rodric Braithwaite, assured him “nothing of that sort will ever happen”.

Did Russia complain about the ‘betrayal’?

Repeatedly. In 1993 Boris Yeltsin, angling for Russia to join Nato, wrote to President Bill Clinton to argue any further expansion of Nato eastwards breached the spirit of the 1990 treaty. The US state department, undecided at the time about Poland’s call to join Nato, was so sensitive to the charge of betrayal that Clinton-era officials even asked the German foreign ministry formally to report on the complaint’s merits. The German foreign minister’s top aide replied in October 1993 that the complaint was formally wrong but he could understand “why Yeltsin thought that Nato had committed itself not to extend beyond its 1990 limits”.

It is not that difficult to understand. Those Russians in power see the writing on the wall; that it is only a matter of time before the US/NATO move on them. The US/NATO has broken every promise they have made; and forced concessions out of Russia when they were vulnerable. So the line in the sand has been drawn. Everyone want to die over Ukraine?

Do the Russian people feel unsafe because of NATO,  or do the Russian criminals in the oligarchy?

Get real.

This is about those in power in Russia. Just like it was about those in power in the US not feeling safe during the Cuban missile crisis. 

What we feel doesn't matter to those in power; no matter which country we are talking about.

Way to shill for Russia. Very patriotic.

Way to shill for Russia. Very patriotic.

So I guess you think the Russian people want this war?

I do happen to believe they don't want it any more than we do... And I think you understand that, so what is this?

Ahhhh, politics, Yes we are back to hating on the other political side now, back to business as usual here at NewsTalkers...

Got it..

The fact remains Russia will be "mother" Russia within its own territories. It is impossible to control destinies of nation-states that do not wish to be (NEW) U.S.S.R. 

Yes, I see the complexities of the situation. Also there is this I recently read and posted on another article (to no 'review' by NT):

I’m a former Moscow correspondent. Don’t let Vladimir Putin fool you:
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is only about one thing.

If you walk the streets of Moscow, you will eventually smell the faint odor of gasoline.

It’s as ever-present in the air around Russia’s capital as it is central to the country’s economy, infrastructure and geopolitical posture.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has spelled out a nationalist rationale for his country’s military incursion into Ukraine, but it is primarily about protecting Moscow’s energy interests. 

That was true in 2014,  when Russia seized Crimea  and I was a Moscow correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, for which I wrote dozens of stories about the  insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk  that Russia helped foment. And it remains true now.

To understand the Kremlin’s motivations in regard to its smaller, and relatively impoverished, neighbor, the key fact to know is that Russia supplies 40% of Europe’s heating-fuel supplies — namely, natural gas.

Any crimp on Russia’s ability to access the European market is a threat to its economic security.

To get it there, Russia relies mostly on two aging pipeline networks, one of which runs through Belarus and the other through Ukraine. For this, Russia pays Ukraine around $2 billion a year in transit fees.

Russia is a petrostate and relies on oil and natural-gas sales for about 60% of its export revenue and 40% of its total budget expenditures. Any crimp on Russia’s ability to access the European market is a threat to its economic security.

I n the Kremlin’s view, a switch of allegiance by Kiev, or Kyiv by Ukrainian preference, to the West — be it an economic association agreement with the European Union like Ukraine was on the verge of signing in 2014, or even the hint of joining NATO — is close to an act of war.

In my three years covering Russia, I watched as the country slowly withdrew into itself after Putin returned to office for what was then his third term as president.

. . . .

In Ukraine, meanwhile, many were growing increasingly ill at ease with the impoverished state of their country and highly corrupt political system as it languished, locked in a kind of Soviet-era limbo under Russian domination.

As Ukrainians looked to rising living standards in places like Poland and Latvia that had joined NATO and the European Union, many wondered why they couldn’t have the same for themselves.

This is where Putin’s nationalistic impulses kick in. He views the fall of the Soviet Union as the “greatest geopolitical tragedy” of the past century and the rush of  former Eastern bloc countries into the embrace of the European Union, and even NATO, as a great humiliation.

He has drawn a line in the sand with countries that border Russia,  invading Georgia in 2008 when it hinted at joining NATO , and moving to destabilize Ukraine when it moved to establish closer economic ties with Europe.

See the remainder of article (it's short) :

I’m a former Moscow correspondent. Don’t let Vladimir Putin fool you: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is only about one thing. (msn.com)

This is about those in power in Russia. Just like it was about those in power in the US not feeling safe during the Cuban missile crisis.

I agree with the power part but I'm not convinced this is the same as the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviet Union most definitely wanted to threaten the US but I can't imagine Putin is realistically thinking the EU would ever willingly initiate hostilities with Russia.

And while some may want to believe that the West is responsible for the current situation, one needs to take into account why so many former Eastern Block countries were or are eager to be in NATO and the EU. Russia has always been a thug and no sane country wants to be under their thumb. That's a situation of their creation and, rather than learn from it, they probably don't even understand why former Eastern Block countries have jumped ship at the first opportunity. Putin's apparent surprise that his forces weren't accepted with open arms is an indication of that, I think. 

So, realistically, what's really happened here? Isn't it just who controls the buffer states between Western Europe and Russia? Is there anyone who believes the former Eastern Block states joined NATO so that they could be in a position to attack Russia? I don't think even Putin believes that. They joined because they want a big brother to protect them from the bully in the neighborhood. 

And, maybe Western Europe and NATO broke promises but, realistically, what were the options? It was for sure that Russia would eventually try to reestablish the former Eastern Block states as client states of Russia, effectively resetting the board to what it was when it was the Soviet Union. Russia can't seem to think any other way. Belarus is evidence of this. Ukraine is evidence of this. 

So, while I think your position is that we have no dog in this hunt I don't agree with that. Ukraine has a lot of problems considering its 'democratic' status, in that it really isn't. They aren't all that different from Russia in that. But I don't think this is about the Ukraine. It's about whether or not we're going to let Putin reset the world to the former Soviet Union. Because there's little point in Putin taking Ukraine unless he has plans beyond that. 

One more thing. If the article I listed above stands up to the task of reporting, then: Russia can not expect Ukraine to 'stay put' as its 'backwater' used for prospering Russia and its own desires as a country be damned. That is not right either, is it?

Some want it.  Some don't.  None are taking any actions to stop it.  The Russian people are the ones in the best position to do so.

Odd that you were all for Ukrainian autonomy elsewhere, and now you're not.  Very consistent.  And predictably partisan.  I didn't mention Republican vs. Democrat at all here.  You brought that up.

you were all for Ukrainian autonomy elsewhere, and now you're not.

Still am, where did you get the idea otherwise? Partisan thinking?

Very consistent.  And predictably partisan.  I didn't mention Republican vs. Democrat at all here.  You brought that up.

Actually you stated one of the typical democrat anti-republican liberal memes of being in bed with/supporting Putin & Russia, yes predictably partisan...

Is it partisan for pointing that out?  Probably, but then claiming the other side is doing what you did is the typical liberal democrat defense to being pointed out for it isn't it...

Like I said, political hate is making a strong comeback here... It's this sites bread and butter..

You jumped my case for objecting to Ronin's comment, which included the statement

Russia will no more tolerate having all NATO countries on it's western border than we would tolerate having a pro heavily armed Russian government in either Canada or Mexico.

So, he's defending Russia, I'm objecting, and you're objecting to my objection (here, but not elsewhere).

(here, but not elsewhere).

This is the only place I've seen it, or recognized it as such...

He isn't defending Russia or Putin in any way, he is stating the frustration of fighting everyone else's wars for them, US boots on the ground thing, US Tax dollars used to support nations that are not always friendly to us thing....

That's not support for Russia in any way shape or form.... It is about not being a go along to get along type, a rubber stamp, or a whacked out so called patriot... he sees a history that has done us little good in the long run... And in many respect he is right on the money and in some he is not...

But he's speaking what he understands is the truth, yes he is on the opposite side of the aisle than you, but that does not mean his position is partisan...

I don't agree with everything he's arguing, but I know it isn't partisan... Don't assume it is... Any assumption of such is absolutely partisan...

And that is what I pointed out...

Like I said, political hate is making a strong comeback here... It's this sites bread and butter..

That's pretty unfair. Perrie tries hard to not make it so, in my opinion, considering the types of articles she herself posts. Her responses are seldom emotional. I think she probably wishes she had better participants rather than those who seem to just want to get their mad on. But we are what we are. 

For myself, I'm trying hard to be less confrontational. Perrie deserves that much from me. 

Some want it.  Some don't. 

I would bet that Russian soldiers are going to lose interest when they see what the ruble is doing. Getting shot at sucks, having your check bounce while being shot at is just salt in the wound. 

political hate is making a strong comeback here... It's this sites bread and butter..

I reject that. And I see you have gone from vain attempts to 'classify' individuals here to outright negatively 'branding' the site. Total rejection of your opinion. You are among friends, not haters here, simply open up and receive this: We can accept you (for you), can you accept us (for us)? Diversity is key if our own country is to survive and more importantly, politically thrive!

There is something to world-wide condemnation that gets the attention of the hardest hard-cases.

He isn't defending Russia or Putin in any way,

Sure, sure.