Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

Sounds like legislation that is similar to Emergency Act which countries have in place and can Instigate at times of natural disaster, pandemics or war.

Australia had the Emergency Act in place during virtually all of 2022 and the last time such measures were enforced was during WW2.

The next step of course is complete Martial Law which will be put in place if the country comes under foreign attack.

That’s when you see the military on the streets and at every intersection and the military controls all sea lanes and airspace.

What Poland is preparing for is possible attack by Ruzzia.
Exactly!

Which btw, is an attack on every NATO member. An attack on 1 NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries - Article 5.

Article 5 does not end there. You better read it. The response or assistance of other Nato members is entirely upto each member separately. If the whole Nato or individual members go into war with Russia that will not stop there either. Russia has it's own articles...

Therefore, that’s a world war event. It’s unlikely, but countries need to have these security measures in place just in case.

In the old days, during WW2, most young Australian and American men were drafted and fighting all over the Pacific, Atlantic, Asia, and Europe. Only the women were left behind. And yes, they were made to work in the factories to make bullets, artillery rounds, vehicles, Tanks, and even aircraft. Everyone did what they can and it was this that eventually defeated the Nazis and Japan and this is how Ruzzia will be defeated as well because we are in a WW3 scenario now.

Actually it’s not up to each member.

All members are obligated to come to the aid of the member under attack otherwise the alliance is compromised.

Greece will be at war too.

And it doesn’t stop there either. Australia, and New Zealand will be at way and possibly Japan and South Korea as well under ANZUS Treaty.

This is why Australia gets roped in to any possible Article 4 implementation and attends all BATO summits even though it’s not a NATO member but might as well be because NATO article 5 of NATO invokes the Article 5 of ANZUS automatically.

Oh really? Tell me how Greece or most other Nato countries responded to article 5 when it was invoked after 9/11? Who did they go to war with?

[Paphitis]

Sounds like legislation that is similar to Emergency Act which countries have in place and can Instigate at times of natural disaster, pandemics or war.

Australia had the Emergency Act in place during virtually all of 2022 and the last time such measures were enforced was during WW2.

The next step of course is complete Martial Law which will be put in place if the country comes under foreign attack.

That’s when you see the military on the streets and at every intersection and the military controls all sea lanes and airspace.

What Poland is preparing for is possible attack by Ruzzia.
Exactly!

Which btw, is an attack on every NATO member. An attack on 1 NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries - Article 5.

Article 5 does not end there. You better read it. The response or assistance of other Nato members is entirely upto each member separately. If the whole Nato or individual members go into war with Russia that will not stop there either. Russia has it's own articles...

Therefore, that’s a world war event. It’s unlikely, but countries need to have these security measures in place just in case.

In the old days, during WW2, most young Australian and American men were drafted and fighting all over the Pacific, Atlantic, Asia, and Europe. Only the women were left behind. And yes, they were made to work in the factories to make bullets, artillery rounds, vehicles, Tanks, and even aircraft. Everyone did what they can and it was this that eventually defeated the Nazis and Japan and this is how Ruzzia will be defeated as well because we are in a WW3 scenario now.

Actually it’s not up to each member.

All members are obligated to come to the aid of the member under attack otherwise the alliance is compromised.

Greece will be at war too.

And it doesn’t stop there either. Australia, and New Zealand will be at way and possibly Japan and South Korea as well under ANZUS Treaty.

This is why Australia gets roped in to any possible Article 4 implementation and attends all BATO summits even though it’s not a NATO member but might as well be because NATO article 5 of NATO invokes the Article 5 of ANZUS automatically.

Oh really? Tell me how Greece or most other Nato countries responded to article 5 when it was invoked after 9/11? Who did they go to war with?

Greece was involved in Afghanistan and had troops in Afghanistan for a period.

9/11 was not an incident that could trigger Article 5 as it was not a state attack against the US. It was a terrorist attack and Merida does not need assistance from NATO to fuck them up. The whole point of NATO is to provide security to Europe and a deterrence.

Turkey had troops in Afghanistan as well.

Both Greece and Turkey were involved in the Korean War as well.

[Paphitis]

WHAT POLISH PRESIDENT, DUDA, HAS SAID ABOUT THE MISSILES CRASH IN POLAND (TRANSLATION FROM POLISH).


And the exact timing of the and... and.. and... "answer" to the question whether Poland can feel safe now

https://youtu.be/uT6b8jrGj_w?t=467

Poland can feel safe under the NATO umbrella.

Ruzzia will think twice.

Unfortunately for Ukraine, it was not a member of NATO. If it was, there would be no war.

It is very clear now that any direct conflict between NATO and Ruzzia, will be the end of Ruzzia and Ruzzia knows it too.

It is non NATO members that should worry about their security. One such country that should worry a lot, is Cyprus because NATO will not give a fuck if Turkey takes the whole island.

They will all turn a blind eye and they won’t send a single soldier for Cyprus.

They just tell Erdogan is a naughty boy and go on as normal.

[Paphitis]

Any country that is under the NATO umbrella can feel safe, and secure.

Any country that isn’t under NATOs umbrella should have a rethink of their security policy and do whatever they can to join.

For some, it will be impossible to join. Cyprus will never be allowed to join.

That is a very sad situation for Cyprus but I’m pretty sure Cyprus isn’t the only one.

NATO won’t allow any country to join with pre-existing political issues either which is why Ukraine was even rejected.

But I think that once this war is over, Ukraine will definitely be joining NATO now. No country would even dare to veto them again. Their resilience and stamina makes them worthy and deserving as well. They earned their right of passage.

[Pyrpolizer]

Interesting that idiots still say nuclear weapons are necessary. And yet how many countries have them in the world. Why have no country that has no nuclear weapons since the WW2 not been attacked with nuclear weapons after 75 years of their existence.

The best way to protect the public in the street from street muggers is to release bunch tigers or lions to roam the city streets. That will stop the muggers in their tracks. And yet we do not. There is a reason.

Yes they are necessary. Unless of course all countries decide to destroy all Nuclear weapons which is unlikely. Now, what are the chances of Ruzzia, North Korea, China, Iran, Israel, India and Pakistan agreeing to this?

I’m pretty sure the Americans, Brits and French wouldn’t mind. The issue are the rest of the mobsters like Ruzzia.

The last one who threatened to use nuclear weapons was Trump against North Korea.
Why is Am-Merica (AM-->in Turkish) not a mobster?

No he didn’t. He never threatened to use Nuclear weapons. America does not have a first strike policy.

America only will use Nuclear weapons if another country like Ruzzia starts preparing to launch against them or a NATO ally.

Saying they are prepared to use these weapons if necessary is something they don’t even need to say. It’s a given.

Biden pretty much said it too just 2 months ago.

Here's Trump threatening to use nuclear weapons against North Korea.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/worl ... tions.html

You are lying intentionally when you say AM (In Turkish) -Erica does not have a first strike policy. It's nuclear doctrine is just ambiguous about the conditions under which it would strike first.

“No First Use” or Not?
Although the United States does not rule out the first use of nuclear weapons, the absence of a “no first use” pledge is less about the perceived need to employ these weapons first in a conflict than it is about the view that the threat of nuclear escalation continues to serve as a deterrent to large-scale conventional war or the use of chemical and biological weapons. Supporters of the current policy argue that removing the threat of nuclear escalation could embolden countries like North Korea, China, or Russia, who might believe that they could overwhelm U.S. allies in their regions and take advantage of local or regional conventional advantages before the United States or its allies could respond. In such a scenario, some argue, the “no first use” pledge would not only undermine deterrence, but could also increase the risk that a conventional war could escalate and involve nuclear weapons use. Moreover, because the United States has pledged to use all means necessary, including nuclear weapons, to defend allies in Europe and Asia, this change in U.S. declaratory policy could undermine allies’ confidence in the U.S. commitment to their defense and possibly spur them to acquire their own nuclear weapons. As a result, in this view, a “no first use” policy could undermine U.S. nuclear nonproliferation goals.

[Pyrpolizer]

Any country that is under the NATO umbrella can feel safe, and secure.

Any country that isn’t under NATOs umbrella should have a rethink of their security policy and do whatever they can to join.

For some, it will be impossible to join. Cyprus will never be allowed to join.

That is a very sad situation for Cyprus but I’m pretty sure Cyprus isn’t the only one.

NATO won’t allow any country to join with pre-existing political issues either which is why Ukraine was even rejected.

But I think that once this war is over, Ukraine will definitely be joining NATO now. No country would even dare to veto them again. Their resilience and stamina makes them worthy and deserving as well. They earned their right of passage.

Greece is under Nato umbrella. How safe does she feel against Turkey???

[Kikapu]

It is non NATO members that should worry about their security. One such country that should worry a lot, is Cyprus because NATO will not give a fuck if Turkey takes the whole island.

They will all turn a blind eye and they won’t send a single soldier for Cyprus.

They just tell Erdogan is a naughty boy and go on as normal.

So, what you’re saying is, that NATO members are like a criminal gangs that they would standby and watch one of their members violate a non NATO sovereign nation.

Therefore, the conclusion can only be to any sovereign nation is, join the criminal gangs of NATO to protect yourself and have a free hand to violate others when you want to:wink:

So, why has NATO decided to support non NATO Ukraine against Russia but it did not support Cyprus when one of it‘s members invaded Cyprus?

Is it the case for NATO members that “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” whenever they act criminally?

All indications are that the missile(s) which fell into Poland was/were Russian missile(s) and NATO knows it to be a Russian missile(s) and yet decided not to respond directly with Russia, therefore, Russia now knows that NATO does not have the stomach to challenge Russia directly, even if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Reason why Zelensky is not happy with NATO’s false narrative on the missile attack in Poland by Russia.

[Lordo]

It's not just once, Cyprus was attacked by two NATO countries in a matter of one week back in 1974.

[Kikapu]

It's not just once, Cyprus was attacked by two NATO countries in a matter of one week back in 1974.

I stand corrected!

[Lordo]

It's not just once, Cyprus was attacked by two NATO countries in a matter of one week back in 1974.

I stand corrected!

But that does not mean Nato is an offensive organisation, Nato is a defensive organisation. Two suggest anything else is pure fantasy.