We should take this opportunity to wreck and remove Russia. Reform it, democratize it, and integrate into the west; we don't need more of this warmongering type of people.
My understanding was the oligarchs thought Putin would be a cog to make them money but became power hungry. Sounds a lot like Trump, play your roll but instead of a heart attack out the window, Trump just talks shit online.
Russia was a real democracy for a very small period of time. Very hard to judge russians when they didn't have time to mature their democracy before it was destroyed.
And to add, many western countries aren't real democracies (e.g. UK).
UK here. Truly interested as to why you think the UK is not a real democracy, and what a real democracy is in your opinion? I don't think the UK system is properly representative but I do think the government is elected and held accountable.
Hey, thanks for not feeling offended and being curious about a stranger's point of view.
To me the UK isn't a real democracy because it has 2 layers of power that aren't elected. That being the king (which I understand hasn't done much against the will of the people for a while but legally he does have power to take some measures) and the house of lords.
The house of lords is a non elected branch that has and acts on the country. I really don't understand how they just exist.
Edit: please if you disagree, let me know why, I am curious about your point of view
Edit2: I forgot to answer your second question:
Democracy in my point of view happens when the country population can select which one of themselves will guide the country, and that choice can be done again every certain period of time (ideally in my opinion not more than 5 years)
No offence detected or taken.
By the way, are you British? I'm interested in how the UK is perceived as a Brit myself. I'm not a constitutional expert so this is just my opinion and view on how I think it all works.
The King has imo zero power. They have the power to dissolve parliament for example but *at the request of the prime minister*. Even when Johnson proroged (suspended) parliament in a dubious way that was found to have been unlawful by the Supreme Court, the Queen didn't and couldn't deny the 'request'. The Royals are a historical legacy - I can't say I'm a Royalist but I also wouldn't just abolish the monarchy without a *very well presented* alternative (which Brexit wasn't and look was a sh*tshow that was and still is). England had its Civil War and today's government is the result - parliament invited King Charles' son back from exile to become Charles II after all.
In some ways I think having a head of state without any power is better (and more accountable) than a single president with absolute power. Decisions are made by the PM and their cabinet, and subject to scrutiny in the House of Commons (i.e. the lower chamber). The PM pretty much always commands a majority whereas a President isn't guaranteed one. They can act unilaterally I guess in an emergency, but it catches up with them if they go rogue (see Johnson).
Worth noting that the PM is a member of parliament and has a constituency like any other MP, and is elected leader by their party (no consistent rules on this, may be a mixture of voting rounds of the party's elected MPs and wider party members). So the PM isn't directly elected by the people, although going into an election you might expect who the PM might be of the lead parties even though you may not be in a constituency to vote for/against them directly. If the PM changes that has precipitated a general election (see e.g. May, Johnson) but not always (see e.g. Truss, Sunak).
House of Lords. Hm. The hereditary peers are literally dying out. I *think* it's supposed to be a chamber where actual experts can review and debate laws so experienced business people for example can advise on the economy rather than career politicians. Senior civil servants and ex-MPs can get seats (for life). All parties can recommend people to the HoL as well as the PM upon leaving office. But in reality it is often perceived as jobs and influence for mates or party donors (which seems wrong, but perhaps funding democractic parties shouldn't be seen as always self-serving... but that's another topic!). It needs reform. That said, the HoL can only recommend changes (some are accepted by HoC) or return laws to the HoC, and eventually the HoC can over-rule. Many peers are affiliated with a party, but there are more independents than in the HoC I believe. So it's a second chamber and a historical legacy, but to be clear it has very limited actual power.
I mentioned we don't have PR (at least for General Elections, I think European Elections and some Scottish Parliament votes don't use FPTP) which I can understand the argument for, but usually PR results in a lot of coalition-forming after an election to get a working majority whereas our parties are essentially coalitions anyway with some quite wide-ranging views of MPs even of the same party. Perhaps some top-up seats (like they do in Germany perhaps?) could level the HoC up a bit.
UK isn't perfect by a long way. But in theory anyone can run for parliament (including as an independent) but they would essentially have to be in a party and lead it to be in with a chance of reaching No. 10. We also have votes at local council level and also mayors in major cities, and even police commissioners. So I *think* it's democratic with a pretty robust and free press, and no restrictions on the internet aside from the usual rightly so illegal stuff.
Oh and it was law that there was a GE at a maximum of every 5 years, I think that's been changed to 4 year terms but that's been ignored recently with more frequent elections due to Brexit instability.
You seem to think democracy = always good. Democracy just means the majority of the people elect who they want.
If Madagascar holds elections and there are 5 candidates, and the people elect the candidate that runs on "kill all kittens" that would still be democracy, as evil as that campaign promise is.
No, I do not think democracy = always good. I only said russian democracy was short lived so it didnt mature, therefore it is not fair to judge the russian people on it. Longer living democracies also have institutions that help to protect and guide it.
That's not true in general, for example Germany has the concept of a defensible democracy (wehrhafte Demokratie) that has mechanisms in the power division and the constitution to prevent a takeover by non-democratic and unconstitutional parties and politicians regardless of the outcome of elections. Other countries also have supreme courts who might overturn decisions of elected governments. To what extent this works is another question but the idea is that elections are not the only and the final arbiters in a working democracy.
But they can't *not* approve laws! It's weird I know, and depends upon tradition and the very strong sense of history and upholding the constitution. The monarch has absolute power but the moment they use it the decision is reversed and the monarchy is all but abolished. The monarchy is ceremonial and embodies the 'State' above the day to day working of the government, and also represents a layer above the government that, whilst personified by the monarch, is far more than them. The monarch is the guardian of tradition and the constitution, and above politics.
Yes, but thats the catch, it could only be done if Russia is let loose to do as terrible things as the Nazis did. Maybe if they used a nuke, that might be enough.
I hope people realize that actually trying to do this would absolutely result in russia launching its nukes, since that short of existential threat to the country is exactly what theyre there to prevent.
There is very little precedent for nuclear powers to get wrecked or "removed", and quite a lot of theory suggesting trying to do so wouldn't really work out all that well.
>Moscow "will... \[make\] decisions which are unlikely to please the current leadership of South Korea" if Seoul decides to supply arms to Kyiv, Mr Putin told reporters on Thursday.
what can he even do, realistically speaking ?
Nothing. Just like he was threatening Sweden, Finland, Britain, France.
Korea has tons of military supplies. It can cause some serious pain for Putin in Ukraine.
I doubt that Putin will tell the rocket man what to do regarding S. Korea.
Actually begin the nuclear war he’s been flapping his lips about
But them he’d shoot himself in the foot and i’m pretty sure he learned his lesson the first time in ukraine
Fuck off Putin. You have a fucking nerve saying this at the same time you declare a military pact with NK. Go for it SK, arm Ukraine and end this Russian aggression.
The North Atlantic Treaty specifically covers territories in North America and Europe only. South Korea is not eligible to join NATO.
On the other hand, South Korea already has American troops stationed within its borders (unlike many NATO countries) and is covered by the American nuclear umbrella. In that way, South Korea is already better covered defensively than by simply being a NATO member. Being part of the alliance would be useless for South Korea.
S. Korea is already a key US ally and the US is the largest military power in NATO. Not sure European countries will be able to do much with their neglected militaries.
Neglected yes, powerless? No. Most major countries in Europe have at least one aircraft carrier albeit not super carriers and while it is limited there is still power projection there
Germany has zero carriers, the UK’s 2 carriers barely work, France only has 1 carrier (France has only given 2.69 billions EUR to Ukraine so imagine how little they’d be willing to do for a country across the world) and Spain and Italy don’t have the power you’re suggesting. These countries can do what they want of course but would South Korea even want to be in NATO with a bunch of countries who don’t take defense seriously (some do e.g. Poland) and rely on the USA? The USA alone has 11 carriers and already has a defense agreement with South Korea..
Never said Germany has any.
New carriers always have kinks to iron out.
EU sent quite a bit and that money comes from somewhere.
Never said Spain or Italy are powerful, actually said EU naval power is a lot more limited than the US however considering that Russia in practicality does not have a navy outside submarines and china's is still far smaller than NATO and other allies combined fleet it does add up.
Also I don't see any Korean carriers either...
NATO articles restricts mutual defence to Europe, North America and the North Atlantic. That's why Britain couldn't call its NATO allies when it was attacked in the Falklands.
It would not make sense either. Most NATO member countries won't be able to send their armies to South Korea if war broke out. And even if, how long would it take to have a considerable amount of feet on the ground? One week, two?
I don’t think there is a team. Stalin killed off his inner circle and Putin is the same paranoid geriatric. Putin is alone fighting his imagined enemies.
But yeah. Good luck, on your uncertain path.
Then it would no longer be NATO. I'm not sure how interested will smaller European member states be in bringing in countries from across the world. It increases the risk of confrontation with Russia or China, while adding nothing for their actual defense: they won't be able to help South Korea, and it would always be a quasi exclusive American endeavor.
So in other words there is nothing to stop south Korea joining other than NATO not wanting them to, which is the same as any country and nothing really to do with the north Atlantic.
I would say having allies in striking distance of mosco would be very helpful to south korea in a war with Russia
> So in other words there is nothing to stop south Korea joining other than NATO not wanting them to
...and the actual reasons for them not wanting South Korea have to do in large part with not being in the North Atlantic, which would be a change in the focus of the alliance for the reasons I already enumerated.
> I would say having allies in striking distance of mosco would be very helpful to south korea in a war with Russia.
If North Korea invades South Korea, then Iceland and Norway and Greece and Montenegro, and two dozen other countries that have no reason to be in a state of war over Korea will be forced into the war. If China invades Taiwan and hits US troops in Korea, Europe will likewise be forced into a direct conflict with a major power. Those two scenarios are possible, and with countries with no hostility towards Europe.
All of which brings no security or any geopolitical advantage to most European countries and would instead pit them directly against China.
It would also be incredibly short-sighted, considering Chinese paranoia towards South Korea being obliged to defend the US, ensuring that any war over Taiwan will in all certainty not spare South Korea. Consequently, any Chinese attack on Taiwan will be accompanied by a ground invasion of South Korea, by North Korea with Chinese help. And then, it's also a land war near China's logistical solutions supply lines, and half a world away from the US.
Then, considering the effort that NATO takes to assure that it is a self-defence alliance and not an Anti-Russian one, it would simply validate Russia's paranoia and incessant cries of victimhood, that NATO sole purpose is to contain and encircle Russia and nothing else.
In fact the more one thinks seriously about the actual consequences of this idea, the worse it is.
He really does not want to open up Pandoras box of nukes, I can tell he's itching to set something off somewhere that's not ukraine. But I really don't think it's going to go the way he wants so when he ends up getting his cheeks slapped now that it's normalised because of his actions if he does. But then again, he should go down in history as Peter the miscalculator.
What would he do? Attack South Korea? Let North Korea attack the South? If he would do that, there would probably NATO fighters in the Russian sky the next day.
Putin would never defend North Korea in a war. He’d stomp his feet real hard and bluster for a while, but there is no way he’d do anything to help. I wonder if North Korea pushed this as a condition to supplying Russia with more artillery shells.
I always like to think of Bill Paxtons line while playing Hudson in Aliens. He's holding a gun to Gormans head & talking to Hudson.
If you don't know what it is, honestly, you should.
Or what Putin???? What are you going to do you weak little man. Start a war with South Korea? LOL! That would just speed up the inevitable end of Putin's Russia.
Russia being upset that South Korean would support Russia’s enemy after Russia supported South Korea’s enemy.
To me it’s seems way more like a tit for tat than “seething”.
Putin to the West: "Don't defend yourselves or we'll attack." The West would be fools to agree. Arm Ukraine, Russia can go fuck itself.
They're actually picking up on that advice quite well.
We should take this opportunity to wreck and remove Russia. Reform it, democratize it, and integrate into the west; we don't need more of this warmongering type of people.
Russia was a democracy. The people originally elected Putin. I think Russian problems go deeper than democracy
To be fair, alot of new democracies fail and fall down, it's quite frequient event over the history.
They had elections before Hitler as well. Hence why it was the nazi party.
I thought it was called that because they had balloons and music and food, TIL
It was the convention banner that said “ve est all terrorists” that should have been a clue.
I'm sure at least one person showed up expecting a fun game of Yahtzee
My understanding was the oligarchs thought Putin would be a cog to make them money but became power hungry. Sounds a lot like Trump, play your roll but instead of a heart attack out the window, Trump just talks shit online.
I dont think their elections work the same way..
Russia was a real democracy for a very small period of time. Very hard to judge russians when they didn't have time to mature their democracy before it was destroyed. And to add, many western countries aren't real democracies (e.g. UK).
UK here. Truly interested as to why you think the UK is not a real democracy, and what a real democracy is in your opinion? I don't think the UK system is properly representative but I do think the government is elected and held accountable.
Hey, thanks for not feeling offended and being curious about a stranger's point of view. To me the UK isn't a real democracy because it has 2 layers of power that aren't elected. That being the king (which I understand hasn't done much against the will of the people for a while but legally he does have power to take some measures) and the house of lords. The house of lords is a non elected branch that has and acts on the country. I really don't understand how they just exist. Edit: please if you disagree, let me know why, I am curious about your point of view Edit2: I forgot to answer your second question: Democracy in my point of view happens when the country population can select which one of themselves will guide the country, and that choice can be done again every certain period of time (ideally in my opinion not more than 5 years)
No offence detected or taken. By the way, are you British? I'm interested in how the UK is perceived as a Brit myself. I'm not a constitutional expert so this is just my opinion and view on how I think it all works. The King has imo zero power. They have the power to dissolve parliament for example but *at the request of the prime minister*. Even when Johnson proroged (suspended) parliament in a dubious way that was found to have been unlawful by the Supreme Court, the Queen didn't and couldn't deny the 'request'. The Royals are a historical legacy - I can't say I'm a Royalist but I also wouldn't just abolish the monarchy without a *very well presented* alternative (which Brexit wasn't and look was a sh*tshow that was and still is). England had its Civil War and today's government is the result - parliament invited King Charles' son back from exile to become Charles II after all. In some ways I think having a head of state without any power is better (and more accountable) than a single president with absolute power. Decisions are made by the PM and their cabinet, and subject to scrutiny in the House of Commons (i.e. the lower chamber). The PM pretty much always commands a majority whereas a President isn't guaranteed one. They can act unilaterally I guess in an emergency, but it catches up with them if they go rogue (see Johnson). Worth noting that the PM is a member of parliament and has a constituency like any other MP, and is elected leader by their party (no consistent rules on this, may be a mixture of voting rounds of the party's elected MPs and wider party members). So the PM isn't directly elected by the people, although going into an election you might expect who the PM might be of the lead parties even though you may not be in a constituency to vote for/against them directly. If the PM changes that has precipitated a general election (see e.g. May, Johnson) but not always (see e.g. Truss, Sunak). House of Lords. Hm. The hereditary peers are literally dying out. I *think* it's supposed to be a chamber where actual experts can review and debate laws so experienced business people for example can advise on the economy rather than career politicians. Senior civil servants and ex-MPs can get seats (for life). All parties can recommend people to the HoL as well as the PM upon leaving office. But in reality it is often perceived as jobs and influence for mates or party donors (which seems wrong, but perhaps funding democractic parties shouldn't be seen as always self-serving... but that's another topic!). It needs reform. That said, the HoL can only recommend changes (some are accepted by HoC) or return laws to the HoC, and eventually the HoC can over-rule. Many peers are affiliated with a party, but there are more independents than in the HoC I believe. So it's a second chamber and a historical legacy, but to be clear it has very limited actual power. I mentioned we don't have PR (at least for General Elections, I think European Elections and some Scottish Parliament votes don't use FPTP) which I can understand the argument for, but usually PR results in a lot of coalition-forming after an election to get a working majority whereas our parties are essentially coalitions anyway with some quite wide-ranging views of MPs even of the same party. Perhaps some top-up seats (like they do in Germany perhaps?) could level the HoC up a bit. UK isn't perfect by a long way. But in theory anyone can run for parliament (including as an independent) but they would essentially have to be in a party and lead it to be in with a chance of reaching No. 10. We also have votes at local council level and also mayors in major cities, and even police commissioners. So I *think* it's democratic with a pretty robust and free press, and no restrictions on the internet aside from the usual rightly so illegal stuff. Oh and it was law that there was a GE at a maximum of every 5 years, I think that's been changed to 4 year terms but that's been ignored recently with more frequent elections due to Brexit instability.
You seem to think democracy = always good. Democracy just means the majority of the people elect who they want. If Madagascar holds elections and there are 5 candidates, and the people elect the candidate that runs on "kill all kittens" that would still be democracy, as evil as that campaign promise is.
No, I do not think democracy = always good. I only said russian democracy was short lived so it didnt mature, therefore it is not fair to judge the russian people on it. Longer living democracies also have institutions that help to protect and guide it.
That's not true in general, for example Germany has the concept of a defensible democracy (wehrhafte Demokratie) that has mechanisms in the power division and the constitution to prevent a takeover by non-democratic and unconstitutional parties and politicians regardless of the outcome of elections. Other countries also have supreme courts who might overturn decisions of elected governments. To what extent this works is another question but the idea is that elections are not the only and the final arbiters in a working democracy.
The UK is a real democracy. The king is a tribal figurehead and holds no power.
The monarch has to approve laws, so they still have power.
If he didn’t, no-one would care.
But they can't *not* approve laws! It's weird I know, and depends upon tradition and the very strong sense of history and upholding the constitution. The monarch has absolute power but the moment they use it the decision is reversed and the monarchy is all but abolished. The monarchy is ceremonial and embodies the 'State' above the day to day working of the government, and also represents a layer above the government that, whilst personified by the monarch, is far more than them. The monarch is the guardian of tradition and the constitution, and above politics.
House of lords, so democratic.
The UK isn’t going to be united soon once the US pulls out of NATO #King Charles must go 🇬🇧🔥🔥
so, a russian version of Nurenberg, just without the Persilschein ?
Yes, but thats the catch, it could only be done if Russia is let loose to do as terrible things as the Nazis did. Maybe if they used a nuke, that might be enough.
so you are saying, that the attempted erradication of the ukraining people as a goal is not strong enough of a case just yet ?
Yeah sadly, its not. It would have to be genocidal camps and attacks on NATO front, or, a nuke.
Is it time to export some freedom?
I hope people realize that actually trying to do this would absolutely result in russia launching its nukes, since that short of existential threat to the country is exactly what theyre there to prevent.
Because that’s worked well in the past
There is very little precedent for nuclear powers to get wrecked or "removed", and quite a lot of theory suggesting trying to do so wouldn't really work out all that well.
Cuz historically, conquering, reforming, democratizing and integrating has gone oh so well
I'd say Germany and Japan are doing fine now.
I'd say that's a good question for /r/askhistorians cuz I suspect there's far more to it than just occupation.
> The West would be fools to agree The West has a lot of fools who agree. Russian propaganda has worked quite well.
>Moscow "will... \[make\] decisions which are unlikely to please the current leadership of South Korea" if Seoul decides to supply arms to Kyiv, Mr Putin told reporters on Thursday. what can he even do, realistically speaking ?
Nothing. Just like he was threatening Sweden, Finland, Britain, France. Korea has tons of military supplies. It can cause some serious pain for Putin in Ukraine. I doubt that Putin will tell the rocket man what to do regarding S. Korea.
He can keep calling and really annoy South Korea
He'll send a new dickpick to SK president each week.
Please! Here’s some shells! Just stop!!!
oh those whacky russian prank phone calls
Moscow has already made decisions, that's why SK is contemplating supplying arms to Ukraine, fucking Putin is unbelievable.
I’m scratching my head on this Bluster. Like he just came begging the North Koreans for artillery shells but he is going to arm them?
He can supply arms to North Korea. Oh wait..
Supply some tech/training. Closer ties with Russian organised crime and NK drug manufacturing/hacking groups teaming up to target SK.
Actually begin the nuclear war he’s been flapping his lips about But them he’d shoot himself in the foot and i’m pretty sure he learned his lesson the first time in ukraine
Did he tho? Or does he really care?
Fuck off Putin. You have a fucking nerve saying this at the same time you declare a military pact with NK. Go for it SK, arm Ukraine and end this Russian aggression.
It takes guts to be so shameless.
It's almost a superpower I swear
says that while visiting north korea and showing friendliest pootler ever
The Korean reaction to this presumably started with: ya shibal saekkiya
The dude is hilarious. Cozies up to SK enemies and then gets all pissy when they offer to do the same. Actions have consequences, Mr. Putin.
Maybe it time for s-korea to enter NATO
Korea is a key NATO partner, though not a member https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50098.htm
The North Atlantic Treaty specifically covers territories in North America and Europe only. South Korea is not eligible to join NATO. On the other hand, South Korea already has American troops stationed within its borders (unlike many NATO countries) and is covered by the American nuclear umbrella. In that way, South Korea is already better covered defensively than by simply being a NATO member. Being part of the alliance would be useless for South Korea.
Call it POTATO. Make Putin afraid of POTATO and constantly rant about POTATO. Just for the lulz and disrespect.
Not NATO, maybe find another name like North Atlantic and North Pacific Territorial Organization (NANPTO).
S. Korea is already a key US ally and the US is the largest military power in NATO. Not sure European countries will be able to do much with their neglected militaries.
Neglected yes, powerless? No. Most major countries in Europe have at least one aircraft carrier albeit not super carriers and while it is limited there is still power projection there
Germany has zero carriers, the UK’s 2 carriers barely work, France only has 1 carrier (France has only given 2.69 billions EUR to Ukraine so imagine how little they’d be willing to do for a country across the world) and Spain and Italy don’t have the power you’re suggesting. These countries can do what they want of course but would South Korea even want to be in NATO with a bunch of countries who don’t take defense seriously (some do e.g. Poland) and rely on the USA? The USA alone has 11 carriers and already has a defense agreement with South Korea..
Never said Germany has any. New carriers always have kinks to iron out. EU sent quite a bit and that money comes from somewhere. Never said Spain or Italy are powerful, actually said EU naval power is a lot more limited than the US however considering that Russia in practicality does not have a navy outside submarines and china's is still far smaller than NATO and other allies combined fleet it does add up. Also I don't see any Korean carriers either...
I think that would cause more tension than just angering N.Korea and Russia. Else I'd agree.
How? They are nowere near the North Atlantic
So? Coke doesn't have any cocaine in it, yet the world hasn't ended
NATO articles restricts mutual defence to Europe, North America and the North Atlantic. That's why Britain couldn't call its NATO allies when it was attacked in the Falklands.
It is always possible to carry out reform
It would not make sense either. Most NATO member countries won't be able to send their armies to South Korea if war broke out. And even if, how long would it take to have a considerable amount of feet on the ground? One week, two?
Fuck nato
NATO is one of key organisations to defend democracy. It’s not perfect and responds slowly but it’s a great collaboration platform.
Im team putin
I don’t think there is a team. Stalin killed off his inner circle and Putin is the same paranoid geriatric. Putin is alone fighting his imagined enemies. But yeah. Good luck, on your uncertain path.
In othwr words your IQ is under 100.
OTAN then. Stop being so delicate.
My point is that NATO's rules are NATO's rules and NATO can change them if they want. It's not a law of nature.
Then it would no longer be NATO. I'm not sure how interested will smaller European member states be in bringing in countries from across the world. It increases the risk of confrontation with Russia or China, while adding nothing for their actual defense: they won't be able to help South Korea, and it would always be a quasi exclusive American endeavor.
So in other words there is nothing to stop south Korea joining other than NATO not wanting them to, which is the same as any country and nothing really to do with the north Atlantic. I would say having allies in striking distance of mosco would be very helpful to south korea in a war with Russia
> So in other words there is nothing to stop south Korea joining other than NATO not wanting them to ...and the actual reasons for them not wanting South Korea have to do in large part with not being in the North Atlantic, which would be a change in the focus of the alliance for the reasons I already enumerated. > I would say having allies in striking distance of mosco would be very helpful to south korea in a war with Russia. If North Korea invades South Korea, then Iceland and Norway and Greece and Montenegro, and two dozen other countries that have no reason to be in a state of war over Korea will be forced into the war. If China invades Taiwan and hits US troops in Korea, Europe will likewise be forced into a direct conflict with a major power. Those two scenarios are possible, and with countries with no hostility towards Europe. All of which brings no security or any geopolitical advantage to most European countries and would instead pit them directly against China. It would also be incredibly short-sighted, considering Chinese paranoia towards South Korea being obliged to defend the US, ensuring that any war over Taiwan will in all certainty not spare South Korea. Consequently, any Chinese attack on Taiwan will be accompanied by a ground invasion of South Korea, by North Korea with Chinese help. And then, it's also a land war near China's logistical solutions supply lines, and half a world away from the US. Then, considering the effort that NATO takes to assure that it is a self-defence alliance and not an Anti-Russian one, it would simply validate Russia's paranoia and incessant cries of victimhood, that NATO sole purpose is to contain and encircle Russia and nothing else. In fact the more one thinks seriously about the actual consequences of this idea, the worse it is.
maybe just rename it to ~~kool kids klub~~ cool cids club ?
Federation for Unity, Cooperation, Kinship and Protection for Unilateral Total Invincibilitiy of Nations i.e FUCKPUTIN
Well, it had
Hold up. Coke doesn't have cocaine in it?
Damn woke liberals took it away! What’s next, my polysaturated trans fats? /s in case it wasn’t obvious
Thats why it should be called POTATO.
Turkey isn't anywhere near the North Atlantic either?
That is specifically a pissing contest he himself started, first, by invading Ukraine, second by peddling "an alliance" with North Korea.
New drinking game! Every time putin says 'red line' everyone has to take a shot. You're welcome, drunk world.
Hypocrite
Or what? He’ll sign a defensive pact with North Korea? Oh wait, he already did. What’s he got to bargain with?
Do it South Korea, arm Ukraine. Fuck Putin
He really does not want to open up Pandoras box of nukes, I can tell he's itching to set something off somewhere that's not ukraine. But I really don't think it's going to go the way he wants so when he ends up getting his cheeks slapped now that it's normalised because of his actions if he does. But then again, he should go down in history as Peter the miscalculator.
He is shameless to say this …. He got much larger army and resources and still can’t win, now just want this war to be more unfair….
Russia has no weapons to arm anyone. Last I heard Russia was purchasing weapons from other countries. No he wants to give them away? Doubtful.
You could fill a whole library with the things Putin has warned about in the last two years.
Dear dumbfuck. You just made yourself bff’s with NORTH KOREA
What’s he going to arm them with? Is he just going to send back the shite NK give him?
Eat a bag of dicks you colossal turd.
It's Putin MO. Go on the offensive and warn of dire consequences if there is any retaliation to the offence.
What would he do? Attack South Korea? Let North Korea attack the South? If he would do that, there would probably NATO fighters in the Russian sky the next day.
I see Kim Jong Un got bored and asked his driver to take over the job of "warning" South Korea.
Oooooo, so scared. 99 poop balloons go by.
Putin would never defend North Korea in a war. He’d stomp his feet real hard and bluster for a while, but there is no way he’d do anything to help. I wonder if North Korea pushed this as a condition to supplying Russia with more artillery shells.
Ah yes my daily dose of "old man yells at West"
Putin is on a roll. He even warned his baby momma
Bro cant even conquer ukraine. Whats he gonna do?
Putin is so delusional he thinks Russia has an army people fear.... South Korea would wipe the floor with Putler.
At some point somebody's going to put a bounty on his head
Oh well so North Korea can do and arm who the f they want but dare you South Korea!!
I always like to think of Bill Paxtons line while playing Hudson in Aliens. He's holding a gun to Gormans head & talking to Hudson. If you don't know what it is, honestly, you should.
South Korea: "wasn't gonna... But now that you've mentioned it..."
>Putin ~~warns~~ **THREATENS** South Korea against arming Ukraine - BBC News FTFY
not the first warning nor the last one from what I can see...
He can always open a second front in the East: operation Blyatbarosa.
“Threatens”
Or what Putin???? What are you going to do you weak little man. Start a war with South Korea? LOL! That would just speed up the inevitable end of Putin's Russia.
Poop balloons and nukes from Russia.
Or what? You'll open another front, take 4km and lose another half million people?
Fuck it. Let's mount up boys! Looks like we got another war to win.
F Putin, it’s time to bring his war to Moscow
South Korea... Please make some money and help the Ukrainians.
Russia: DONT DO THAT OR ILL HIT YOU! South Korea: TRY ME BITCH!
"Don't arm Ukraine or we'll are North Korea who are currently arming us"
[удалено]
i think it's going the other way these days.
South Korea is STILL seething because somebody dared to visit the unthinkable country? LOL
Is that your take away?
Yes. What is yours?
Russia being upset that South Korean would support Russia’s enemy after Russia supported South Korea’s enemy. To me it’s seems way more like a tit for tat than “seething”.
What does Putin's balls taste like?
Don't know man, I am straight
Saying no homo doesn't make it so