Look how proud Lindsay Graham is that the Ukraine war with Russia is very beneficial to them.

No ounce of remorse for how many Ukrainian people died for them.

Told you Zelenskyy is a puppet to the West since the first year of war.

Even a 10 million bounty known Al-Qaeda top leader is welcome to the Whitehouse recently.

to the last Ukranian. Good news indeed, prime land

This alone should make it obvious, but ktards pura-pura buat tak nampak and still support that bloodthirsty barbarians causing problems around the globe.

From their own mouth, what more do they need to do to convince you that the American ruling government is evil?

Even welcoming a known top Al-Qaeda leader with a 10 million bounty on his head to their Whitehouse, it just shows that he is their puppet to take control of the Middle East countries through terrorism.

bloodthristy barbarians?
who invaded who here?

NATO plans to place nuclear missiles right next to the Russia border if Ukraine joins NATO.

Ever heard of Cuban missile crisis?

When the U.S.S.R. tried to place its nuke missiles one thousand miles away from America's border, America quickly threatened to conquer Cuba within days.

But luckily U.S.S.R. doesn't want to drag Cuba into war, so they withdraws their nuclear missiles from Cuban soil.

Same shait, but this time Russia has already warned repeatedly not to expand NATO to their borders, NATO which was created to counter the U.S.S.R power, but somehow instead of following the agreement made, they keep expanding NATO.

If America has the right to wage war on a country that is one thousand miles away to prevent nuclear missiles from being placed there, why can't Russia?

Unlucky for Ukraine, America wants the war, because it is the best investment.

This post has been edited by smsid: Nov 29 2025, 11:40 AM

ukranian mui very pretty

Agenda yahoodee was existed since malaya era.

They see others becum stronger they send CIA go stir shits

NATO plans to place nuclear missiles in Ukraine according to who?
Your hero puting?

America wage war on Cuba is as lame an excuse as Russia wage war on Ukraine.
Sovereign country, sovereign rights.
So how? 2 wrongs make a right now?

NATO expanded to 2 more countries i dun see your hero puting attack them after giving repeated warning also.

This is same as Hamas saying terrorism on Israel is very beneficial. To the last Palestinian

Because in Ukraine, approximately 1/3 of the population is Russian-speaking natives.

West Ukraine Nazi have been terrorizing East Ukraine folks for many years by bombing them.

It is in their interest.

Tell me, why is it the best investment for America?

So dead Ukrainian and dead Russia is America's best investment money can buy?

This post has been edited by smsid: Nov 29 2025, 12:08 PM

So by ur logic ccp or usa can invade many countries also because a big percentage of population speak their native language and its in their interest.
Lame excuse here.

If you want to know what is the best investment for America, go ask Warren Buffet.

Maybe, because Russia sees dead Russians and Ukrainians as a best investment according to your logic so why not.

America has already invaded many countries using the same logic what.

To spread democracy and freedom, you forgot already?

Bomb Laos poor country, bomb Vietnam, bomb Korea, all that no problem?

Bomb Venezuela fisherman is okay too right?

This post has been edited by smsid: Nov 29 2025, 12:19 PM

smsid is talking crap now.

No idea where does he get his source of news from.

Next best investment:

Again, 2 wrongs make right?

Its very desperate of you trying to justify russia invade ukraine by justifying what America did was right also just to fit your narrative.

Oh great, CHATGPT response now.

There goes the credibility.....

Sorry, i dun give out free views.

No mention of nukes being place in Ukraine.
Oh look Poland until today do not have NATO nukes.

This post has been edited by COOLPINK: Nov 29 2025, 12:30 PM

Tell me, why Lindsay Graham say it is their best investment many time repeatedly?



America has killed more than a million people on last 2 decades alone, ktards no problem with it?

Bloodthirsty barbarians keep expanding NATO when they already agreed not to expand it after many warning?

They can't honor their agreement of not expanding NATO?

Can search yourself, but want to be spoonfeed.

https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/deterren...uclear%20forces

Then you don't wish to see their next best investment they have in store?

After war rebuilding is the best investment you can made IF you have cable

US missile stock pile expiry date is 7 to 10 years.. so when going to expire, rather throwing them out, better kasi sell to ukraine indirectly and exchange back with some terms

We condemn the wrongs America did just the same.
So how?

Where your sos NATO agree not to expand?

How about Russia not honouring the Budapest memorandum that they signed and pledged to respect Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, and borders and refrain from using force against it?

Then condemned harder, because they want to bomb Venezuela next, they already starting bomb and murder Venezuela people on boats.

Read this archive.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/rus...n-leaders-early

The moment Ukraine tries to join NATO, they already under alliance that is anti Russia, you know right why NATO is form?

To counter U S.S.R power, but U.S.S.R is no longer exist, they should have been dissolve too.

when Russia invaded Ukraine, most NPC switched on BBC/CNN to watch them live....and started to condemn Russia.

as if, the conflict has just happened.

so easy to be manipulated.

Dun invite me to go retard like you harder here.
Im not like you living my life filled with blind hate.

So when Russia going to attack Sweden and Finland since you claim NATO is anti Russia?
Lame excuse as usual.

Why NATO need to dissolve?
Its not them that that are facing economic collapse here.

By your logic our VAT69 should be dissolved too since there are no more communist in merehsia.
Logic 404.

fight Russia to the last Ukrainian

fight china to the last japanese/taiwanese/filipino

TS sama je with USA, manipulating ktards to advance his own real agenda.

Funny how AMDK talks about unverified news but many times pancut awal on their own unverified news and then krik krik buat x Tau when kena debunked

Best investment ever.... that is for sure....

now expand same nonsense with flavored taste to Latin America and East Asia... yum yum....

i see stupid people with zero knowledge of history are still alive in 2025. good god

Most important outcome would be

Total
Zigger
Death

Slava Ukr 🇺🇦🔱

Because NATO is a terrorist organization.

See what they do to Libya.

They use depleted uranium bombs to make Libya's land not safe for farming anymore.

From the richest country in Africa to the poorest, and it opens floodgates of refugees.

This post has been edited by smsid: Dec 2 2025, 12:22 PM

NATO’s Depleted Uranium: The Health Consequences of Freedom and Democracy in Iraq, Libya and the Former Yugoslavia

https://www.pambazuka.org/NATO-Depleted-Uranium

Like how nato could put nukes in sweden now, or in latvia ten years ago?

NATO highly recommended to place nuclear as deterrence.

https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/deterren...uclear%20forces

which part of it says they're going to place nukes as you said?

There are no sides. Just a bunch of people in the world who determine who becomes head of each country. Then they all dump their stockpile of old weapons and get themselves rich.

It is highly recommended, what more do you want?

Already admitted that killing Russians and weakening their military is beneficial to the war cartels, the best investment.

Ukraine didn't join NATO, and they already received nonstop "assistance" from the NATO & US.

ok, so which part of that page said it was 'highly recommended'?

Lol everything also need to be spoonfeed.

You read the link I provided from NATO's own page, the first paragraph:

https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/deterren...licy-and-forces

Core components, understood?

yet nothing said it plans to add more nukes, place nukes closer to any countries, nor highly recommends. all your own words.

in fact, the page says:



there's fewer nukes than before. so how?

The core component to make an ICE car to drive is what?

Fuel? Engine? Wheels?

If you take out one of the core components, does the ICE car work?

Then all 3 are highly recommended to make the ICE car work right?

So the core components translate to highly recommended.

And now ICE cars are fewer with EVs in the market.

Everything also needs to be spoonfed, unbelievable.

This post has been edited by smsid: Dec 2 2025, 02:04 PM

so youre just going to gloss over the 90% reduction in nukes eh?

I already answered the highly recommended part, now you are trying to shift the goal post again.

Core components, but now many new weapons have been invented, see Ukraine has been the battleground to test out all these new weapons and clear out old stockpile by NATO.

But weird thing is, Ukraine didn't even join NATO yet.

ukraine must now felt like a reused condom

Nope, you literally had to make up a definition on a page that doesnt match your argument, then ignoring the fact that the rest of the page doesnt match your 'definition'. How is it 'highly recommended' but you reduce yhe number of nukes?

Using your example of a car, an engine is a core component of a car but it doesnt mean that it becomes "highly recommended" to slap on six more engines on your car. That is a retarded argument.

So assuming youre not driving around a car with 6 engines and 17 wheels, i think a normal person wouldnt equate 'core component' with 'highly recommended'.

Lol, you just answered it yourself with your own statement above.

You don't need many nukes as a deterrence, nevertheless it is highly recommended to have it, it is NATO's core component for defense and deterrence.

Only need 1 engine as a core component to make a car drive, you don't need too many.

This post has been edited by smsid: Dec 2 2025, 02:32 PM

precisely - so how do point at a document that says that nukes are a 'core component' that "you dont need too many", and say that this document says that they're going to put more nukes?

Youre saying nato "highly recommends" nukes, but there are at the same time 90% fewer nukes than when nato started, theres only very few countries that host them (none of them anywhere near russia), and theres no plans to install any new bases for nukes, including in countries that are already nato members.

Does that sound right?

This post has been edited by empyreal: Dec 2 2025, 02:56 PM

Then it is NATO's own fault, for putting a conflicting statement on their own official website.

Nevertheless it is a core component for defense and deterrence, logically it is.

Actually it's your own fault for low comprehension in English.

> "my logic doesnt make sense, so it must be other people's fault."

Russia attack Ukraine in accordance to UN resolution?
NATO military intervention in Libya is in accordance with
UN resolution.
So who the terrorist here?
How convenient of you to leave facts out to spin half truths.

Qatar, Jordan and UAE joined NATO in Libya military intervention in 2011.
So how? According to your logic they are terrorist also?

Guess who abstained in passing the 2011 UN resolution?

Ukraine masih tak mahu wake up....
Inb4, they are not allowed to wake up

Mate, core component for defense & deterence =/= we are going to put nukes in Ukraine.

There is nothing conflicting about "nukes beings core component for defense & deterence" and "no nukes in Ukraine".

The nukes can still be in France, Germany and it is still "core component for defense & deterence"

You yourself have low comprehension, already stated in the first paragraph nuclear is a core component for defense and deterrence.

Trying hard to refute NATO's own admissions, they have a nuclear sharing program.

NATO itself admitted in the first paragraph on their page that it is a core component for defense and deterrence.

That's why America doesn't dare to invade North Korea, they are trying to use South Korea as a proxy war.

Remember the South Korean president went crazy and blocked the Parliament session?

They didn't drop bombs on Libya with depleted uranium bombs, also they provided humanitarian assistance immediately.

They work under the banner of the U.N, mostly with humanitarian assistance.

That's why Libyan casualties don't reach millions like in Iraq.

Ukraine didn't even join NATO yet, and look at all the "assistance" they are getting.

It is a NATO core component for defense and deterrence for a reason.

This post has been edited by smsid: Dec 3 2025, 08:47 AM

Qatar did provided fighter jets and attacked targets in Libya.
Jordan and UAE provided fighter jets and other military assets also.

So according to your logic they are terrorist.
So now working under UN banner is ok with you now?
yet you say NATO terrorist when work under UN banner.

So how?
Or you want to continue spin half truth when it does not fit your narrative and kantoi as usual?

This post has been edited by COOLPINK: Dec 3 2025, 09:43 AM

Lets recap the convo:

> "nato wants to put nukes on russia's border. This nato page says so."
> does it actually say so?
> "no, but it says 'highly recommends'."
> does it actually say 'highly recommends'?
> "no, but it says 'core component'."
> does core component mean nato will add more nukes?
> "no, the page says theres 90% fewer nukes since the cold war."
> does core component mean nato will build more nuke bases?
> "no, none of nato's new members since the end of the cold war host nukes."
> does the page say anything about putting nukes in ukraine?
> "no."
> so what does the page have to do with your argument?
> "err... its nato's fault that the page i linked doesnt support my argument."

This post has been edited by empyreal: Dec 3 2025, 11:31 AM

purposely leave a gap for Ukraine army to escape, but that escape route high chances is a trap by Russian, they can easily spot massive retreat and bombard them. Look like Russia is trying to eliminate Ukraine army as many as possible, leaving them low amount of young men to strike back in this 1-2 decades.

Ukraine has nothing left to milk for US, they would rather faster wrap up and end the war. US cannot guarantee supply of weapon since China has prohibit the rare earth export to US military industry.

This post has been edited by yhtan: Dec 3 2025, 11:43 AM

Doesn't indicate anything about getting nukes.

Where is your source that Qatar and UAE provided their military asset to bomb Libya?

It is NATO's core components for defense and deterrence, as stated on first paragraph, it is clear cut, why you people still think that it is not impossible for Ukraine to apply for it is beneath me.

Even when Ukraine is not part of NATO, you can clearly see how much weapons and "assistance" being funnel to Ukraine with ease since day one.



https://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic...uclear-sharing/

The statement that nuclear weapons are a "core component" of NATO's capabilities does not mean the Alliance will add more nukes. It is a long-standing policy statement affirming the importance of existing nuclear deterrence.

The purpose of the nuclear arsenal is solely to preserve peace and prevent coercion and aggression, not for offensive use or force expansion.

In essence, "core component" emphasizes the importance of nuclear deterrence to NATO's strategy, not a plan to increase the number of nuclear weapons.

See the Poland nuclear sharing program news below:



https://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic...uclear-sharing/

This post has been edited by smsid: Dec 3 2025, 06:32 PM

The same page also said nato pursues non-proliferation, reduction of nukes in europe, and less reliance on nuclear weapons in its strategy.

So how?

😆😆🤣🤣🤣

Learn how to read properly, where i got say UAE and Jordan bomb Libya.
Unlike you i do not need to resort to half truths to keep narrative.

The first paragraph still says it is a core component for defense and deterrence, no matter how you try to twist and turn.

That's why the US didn't dare to try to conquer North Korea as they plan to do with Venezuela, they try to use South Korea as a proxy.

Still remember the crazy president in South Korea blocking the parliamentary process?

Nice way to goal shift, hebat!

I said NATO France bombed Libya using depleted uranium, and you try to insinuate that other countries also do the same in Libya.

Those things destroy farm land for good.

And are depleted uranium munitions banned by UN treaty?
You got fact check that before u syok sendiri?

no one's saying that its not a core component, its just that at the same time nato is also actively reducing nukes and relying less on it as a strategy - all points raised in the page (and contradicts your point). 'twisting and turning' is telling people to just read one para and ignore everything else on the page, which as i said before, is a retarded way of thinking.

in fact, the page you gave disproves your original post: you say nato plans to put nukes, the page you give literally says nato wants to reduce nukes and rely less on them.

Another guy is trying hard to shift the goal post.

Whether it is allowed or not, France's decision to use depleted uranium on Libyan soil is a serious issue that will cause health problem to the populace for many decades.

Agent Orange was not banned by the UN during the Vietnam War, so it was okay for the US to use it then?



First paragraph still says nuclear is a core component to defense and deterrence, logically it is.

Trying hard to deny the first paragraph is a funny attempt, lol.

Core component = highly recommended as defense and deterrence.

You would be naive to think in any war environment consideration takes precedence.

You might as well tell your hero puting to stop using bullets as it contains lead and heavy metals are toxic to the environment and humans.
See he wants to do a Greta Thunberg and start using sticks and stones in war just for the sake of the environment.

FYI your beloved Russia has hundreds of thousands of depleted uranium ammunition.

Agent Orange was not banned back then so no its not a war crime as it is after the fact.

not sure if your denial makes you read things wrong, but...



the only thing everyone is disputing is you desperately hinging your entire argument on one paragraph and ignoring everything else on the same page, simply to try to make your own interpretation work. guy really thinks that not scrolling down means it doesnt exist.

let's see whether AI can help you - 'does nato recommend nukes for ukraine?'



see, even AI gets it, lol

Because Ukraine is not part of NATO yet, so the A.I answered it logically.

And you expect for US or NATO to reveal their future plan for Ukraine once they join NATO ahead of time? Ridiculous.

But you could already see so many kinds of weapons and "assistance" being given to Ukraine nonstop even before they join NATO.

Almost everyone thought Russia could defeat Ukraine easily, but NATO & US meddling have prolonged the war for this long.

This post has been edited by smsid: Dec 4 2025, 12:14 AM

> "nato plans to put nukes in ukraine!"
> do you have proof of that?
> "you expect nato to reveal their future plan?"

lol

Laugh at yourself, I already proved that it is highly recommended to place nuclear as a deterrence.

It is entirely possible for Ukraine to request a nuclear sharing program under the NATO banner as Poland did.

I already provided NATO's official page, the first paragraph already stated that nuclear is a core component of defense and deterrence.

Yet here you are still trying hard to shift the goal post like a sore loser. So hilarious.

This post has been edited by smsid: Dec 4 2025, 01:02 AM

Who condemns the wrongs of America? Most of the west doesn't, westoid cocksuckers on /k doesn't either. They perform olympic level mental gymnastics to justify US invasions of sovereign nations all the time, or they will just downplay it and parrot "muh freedumbz" and "muh democrazy" like 50 IQ sheep.
I don't understand the obsession shitstains on /k has for comdemnation when the supposedly 'superior' democratic and free westoid nations won't even hold their war criminals and criminal politicians accountable for their atrocities. You can scream and criticize them until you're blue in the face. Nothing's gonna change.
Last I checked, George Bush and Tony Blair is still free and enjoying their retired life instead of rotting in a prison cell, same for Obama. US military personnel that have carried out war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan has been pardoned by Trump. So who's taking responsibility here?

This post has been edited by techplay: Dec 4 2025, 02:01 AM

Who invade who here?

Yes we are living in a world where mostly democracy is flawed yet you are still living in one.

So when you want to migrate to North Korea?

This post has been edited by COOLPINK: Dec 4 2025, 06:23 AM

> reading the whole document you yourself gave = shifting goal posts

Guy thinks the whole world is wrong before he himself is wrong lol

US, along with UK and Australia invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, retard. All democratic nations and I've yet to see punishment for the people responsible. So what exactly makes that system superior when there's no accountability? How is it any different from a dictatorship that you criticize so much? Are you just another virtue signaling cuck who thinks democracy=moral? Because there's countless examples of democracies behaving just as bad if not worse than dictatorships.

I support the 1991 invasion of Iraq and condemn the 2003 invasion of Iraq and invasion of Afghanistan.

But i guess to you condemn Russia invasion of Ukraine makes me AMDK.
Oh wait im condemning Russia a country which constitution says its a democratic country invading its neighbour.
And here you are calling me out as an avid supporter of democracy.
Oh the irony!

Despite you using of vulgar words here, you fail to impress me at all.
In fact its showing me your tunjuk bodo.

U no need tokok so much condemning democracy, when you want to migrate to North Korea?
Enjoying your freedom much hypocrite?

You're the one telling me to move to North Korea for not sucking off democracy enough. So you clearly like that system, more so than any other. I couldn't care less which invasions you're critical of, because your condemnation is worthless, did it change anything? Has your condemnation achieved peace in the Middle East or Russia and Ukraine?

I'm pointing out how there are democratic nations that behave no different from dictatorships to show it's not an inherently superior system because dipshits like yourself seem to think it is, just by virtue of being a democratic country. No shit, my vulgar language isn't there to impress, it's to insult. Way to figure that one out, shit for brains.

What freedom are you referring to? Speech? We have no freedom of speech in most democratic nations, including Malaysia, what the fuck are you on about?

Depleted uranium is basically like Agent Orange, it ruins the land for the generation to come, and will cause birth defects and health problems for decades to come.

Also for your information, I condemn Russia for invading Ukraine.

You are mistaken that since I make a thread about an American senator saying the war is the best investment, it doesn't mean I am pro Russia.

Same with the COVID-19 experimental MRNA vaccine, against an experimental vaccine, doesn't mean I am anti-vaccine.

I just don't like to be used like lab rats and sign a waiver form.


Just that I found it so disgusting that an American senator was gloating about it so openly many times.

I already proved my point, but clearly, you just can't call it a day, trying hard to keep shifting the goal post.

NATO official site, first paragraph, thanks for playing.

Guy doesnt even realise that the first paragraph also has nato's commitment to arms control and non-proliferation.

Inb4 "noooooo... dont look at the first para, just look at the fist sentence only!"

You asked me to prove where it says that NATO recommends nuclear as a deterrence, I provided NATO's own official page, in the first paragraph, nuclear is a core component to defense and deterrence.

Yet you are still trying hard to shift the goal post, hahaha, so pathetic lol.

No, what i asked was:

Four pages later and still no answer. Words like 'highly recommend' and all that are your words.

You literally got confused with your own twisting lol

Because having nuclear weapons in Ukraine once they join NATO is the ONLY deterrence against Russia force from invading them

Because NATO highly recommends it as a deterrence.

That's why Russia rushed in to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.

See Poland do it too, as deterrence.



https://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic...uclear-sharing/

Is that your assumption, or is that in the page you gave?

Dont have to start twisting by bringing in poland (they also dont have nukes) and other websites. We've been talking about one single page for the whole thread.

Its an easy question: which part of that nato page says that theyre going to place nukes in ukraine as you said?

Not assumptions, NATO itself says it is a core component for defense and deterrence in the first paragraph.

Every NATO member can request a nuclear sharing program.

If Ukraine joins NATO, requesting nuclear weapons for defense and deterrence might save them from being invaded.

But Russia rushes in to prevent it from happening.

This post has been edited by smsid: Dec 4 2025, 11:25 AM

Since when "can request" means "nato plans to"? You can ask for a promotion at work, doesnt mean that your company plans to promote you. What a poor argument.

I repeat again: which part of that nato page says that theyre going to place nukes in ukraine as you said?