Reply With Quote
Yeah, a single soldier proves your point
More posts from the goofy, name swapping twins.
All they want is an end to the current regime. Sure, that can prove bloody. I was just pointing out that the country itself isn't in danger.
Yeah, a single soldier proves your point
More posts from the goofy, name swapping twins.
ass clown, Russia has nukes.
Second best army in the world.
and how has those assisted them in any armed conflict to date?
Love the shout-out to America. Feels good mayne
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...uclear-weapons
The logic of mutually assured destruction that defined the Cold War still works, to some degree: Russia’s arsenal makes any direct intervention in Ukraine riskier than any rational American leader could tolerate. In a sense, then, Russia’s nuclear weapons make it less likely that the conflict will kick off World War III.
But in another sense, Russia’s nuclear arsenal also helped create the conditions where Putin’s invasion could happen in the first place.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60499385
The danger of a superpower confrontation
That's the bottom line - Putin's stockpile of nuclear warheads.
Biden doesn't want to spark a "world war" by risking a direct clash between American and Russian troops in Ukraine and he's been open about that.
"It's not like we're dealing with a terrorist organisation," the president told NBC earlier this month. "We're dealing with one of the largest armies in the world. This is a very difficult situation, and things could go crazy quickly."
So I'd say by keeping more powerful nuclear nations at bay.
But you say the US is not at bay because it -- a powerful nuclear nation -- is helping Ukraine.
Pick a lane.
happened with a few ST posters too, it seems.
Exactly...and they aren't going to use them on the Ukraine.
It's not like the world is giving any sort of huge, advantageous technology to the Ukraine. If Russia is as powerful as some seem to think they are then they should still be able to win fairly easily...but they aren't...because they are using antiquated military tactics. Its like the big strong guy who can't fight worth a walking up on a trained boxer who is only 160 lbs.
This is the whole idea I think most of us are having trouble understanding, and what some of the back and forth in this thread is really centered on. Yes, Ukraine left to its own devices would likely not be able to stand up to Russia for very long, but even before the HIMARS and howitzers rolled in Russia was still doing asinine in the field, like that embarrassing traffic jam to Kyiv that ended in disaster with them having to vacate Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy regions completely.
How can a country so rich in military resources put absolutely no premium on strategy and tactics? They do the dumbest I’ve ever seen from a supposed superpower, and have remarkably atrocious discipline when faced with any adversity in the field.
They’re a walking disaster and an embarrassment to military doctrine.
"BUT ALL THE MILITARY MAGAZINES RANK RUSSIA 2nd IN THE WORLD"
Q.E.D.
(suggesting magazine rankings are predictive of war outcomes is like insisting on the primacy of AP rankings over actual football games. it also overlooks the the dismal war record of the world's most powerful military over the last 60 years.)
I don't need anything, I don't gain anything with anybody's war.. I'm simply looking at what's going on. If the west wouldn't be fighting a clear proxy war with Russia, then I wouldn't be stating that the west is at war with Russia. It's pretty simple, really. China or North Korea haven't invaded anybody, though in the North Korean case (as well as Iran), you can certainly submit we're waging an economic war with them. I don't think anybody that sees what's going on would bat an eye on that claim.You need the US to be at war with Russia so you can move on to your next point, but the US isn't at war with Russia. "Economic warfare"
I guess we're also at war with China and North Korea.
hater was right all along, WWIII. POTY delivering.
Nah, I actually called early on, and you can go look this up in this very thread, that you're going to find CIA operatives captured by Russia over there. My line of thinking back then was this was going to be another 80's Afghanistan proxy war, but instead devolved into something much more explicit.
I can quote myself on that, let me know if you can't find it.
This is exactly why I said "technicalities aside", since I knew exactly this is where you were going. Yet, all parties involved have been pretty clear on what's at stake here, and actions on both sides speak pretty loudly on what's going on.
This is a bold, unsupported claim. Let's not forget that Russia was the first to meddle there, and their original claim was that they wanted to 'de-nazify' Ukraine. Not sure how the West fits into that (then again, nobody believes a word of what Russia claims).
I mean, this is the earliest from me:
A proxy war is still a war. Economic sanctions are indeed one way to wage war as well, the end goal being choking the purse that pays for the military conflict. Again, this isn't very complicated at all. It's no different than Russia weaponizing their gas supply to Europe.
As far as attack, Ukraine didn't attack Russia (the opposite happened), yet Ukraine is in a war with Russia now. Do you understand how a country can find itself at war without attacking first?
the US hasnt had a declaration of war since WW2... is that really the technicality derp wants to hang his hat on?
ing Erdopig needs to pick a lane. Worst EU member by a wide margin.
armenia has basically allowed itself to be a vassal state of russia, unfortunately
not a coincidence that azerbaijan re-started this conflict now that russia is reeling in ukraine
There's also the morale factor. Some of them didn't even know they were being sent to Ukraine and to war. Early on they sent conscripts. Most of these soldiers didn't even know what they were fighting for.
I understand the tactics, but ultimately this comes from Trukey wanting to take over the area. It's just a bad look for the EU and NATO, seeing Turkey is a NATO country.
Erdogan is not in EU.
probably never would be. EU has basically required them to own up to the armenian genocide, something they continue to deny
As if anyone expected to gain great military insights from the former Air Force lab technician.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
