Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They’re gonna need more than long Johns when the power goes out.
Are you suggesting that Russia doesn’t have winter ware? LOL. You do realize that aside Antarctica, Siberia is one of the coldest patches of earth on earth? The Russians are familiar with winter clothing, I think.
They ain’t coming from the Bahamas.
Their troops didn't seem very well supplied last March. And that's when they had been stocking up and preparing for the invasion.
Have you read the Basic Principles of the Russian Federation’s State Policy in the Domain of Nuclear Deterrence from 2020?
“…The Russian Federation retains the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies… and also in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is put under threat.”
The very quote you used proves my position. I bolded and underlined two words.
Good ol'd Colonel McGregor. I watched a few of his videos months ago. I will watch this one as well. Thanks for posting it.
Another question for posters who say/think/believe/hope Russia loses this war: Russia has had fewer troops on the ground than Ukraine. However, Ukraine lost far more men, and Russia seized a large area and annexed it. If Russia escalates to the point it has a substantial numerican advantage over Ukraine, while maintaining advantages in equipment and weaponry, how will Ukrainian troops force Russia to depart from the area it annexed?
Is that your only news source? I don’t only watch CNN. I watch and read multiple sites, including Asian news, Indian news, S. African, TASS - none of them have mentioned over 80% of Ukraine air defense sites were hit in the latest cruise missile sites. They blatantly attacked civilian sites because that’s what the Russian military is good at.
Their troops didn't seem very well supplied last March. And that's when they had been stocking up and preparing for the invasion.
The Russian central government has dumped the financial responsibility down to the regional governments for the mobilization. It will be crooks all the way down.
Is that your only news source? I don’t only watch CNN. I watch and read multiple sites, including Asian news, Indian news, S. African, TASS - none of them have mentioned over 80% of Ukraine air defense sites were hit in the latest cruise missile sites. They blatantly attacked civilian sites because that’s what the Russian military is good at.
Not good at seizing large amounts of real estate which then gets annexed by Russia?
Didn't the Asian news, Indian news, S. African, TASS, which you follow tell you this? Did THEY tell you that attacking civilian sites is what the Russian military is good at?
Is that your only news source? I don’t only watch CNN. I watch and read multiple sites, including Asian news, Indian news, S. African, TASS - none of them have mentioned over 80% of Ukraine air defense sites were hit in the latest cruise missile sites. They blatantly attacked civilian sites because that’s what the Russian military is good at.
Russia specifically said they were targeting energy infrastructure.
Air defenses either work or they don't. Before the air defense system makes a determination where the missile is heading, it needs to shoot it down. It doesn't know if it's going for a A) playground B) Power Plant C) Military infrastructure.
I read that Ukraine's missile defense system shot down 50% of the payload, that leaves 50% that hit their targets.
...............
This is why it's dangerous, as Zelesnky did less than 1 week ago, for anyone to call on nuclear-armed states (in this case, countries like the U.S., the UK, and France - NATO members and part of the west) to launch pre-emptive strikes on Russia. It'd be bad enough if the USAF or RAF launched non-nuclear weapons on Russian targets; if the U.S. or UK or France nuked a Russian target, Russia would strike back with its own nukes.
Thankfully, Russia has wisely decided to adopt a no-first-nuclear-strike policy. But I wouldn't advocate nuking them first.
You seem to be saying two different things.
But yes. A third party strike against Russia would be inadvisable. Not going to happen, in fact.
And no. No one with any sense is advocating nuking Russia first.
A pre-emptive strike by Ukraine with conventional weapons seems like a reasonable course of action to me. If armies are being formed up with the apparent plan to invade Ukraine, they are fair game.
The very quote you used proves my position. I bolded and underlined two words.
You claim “…no-first-nuclear-strike policy…”, yet the policy states otherwise.
“…The Russian Federation retains the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies… and also in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is put under threat.”
Another poster who does not know of or refuses to examine the antics and insignias of Azov and their comrades. Oh well.
Young Neo-Nazi's and supremacists are attracted to war, they like guns, they like to fight. People like this join militaries all over the world in numbers out of proportion to their numbers in civilian life. Although most in the Azov battalion were Russian speaking Ukrainians many of them were from outside of Ukraine, these people were willing to fight for Ukraine so their group was accepted originally while Poroshenko was president.
I can't verify this but the number of neo-Nazi's as a percentage of Azov battalion members had reportedly been gradually declining for some time, especially after Zelenskyy was elected.
I am told there are neo-Nazi's in the Wagner Grp too. Is this not so? The same phenomenon, really.
I am pretty sure that if you could take one Wagner Grp mercenary (before they brought in the Syrians), and one Azov battalion soldier (before Zelenskyy was elected) and strip them down to the waste the number and kind of tattoos would probably be similar.
This is not a reflection on the two governments or the people at large, it reflects some of the kind of people who are attracted to war.
Anyway, I am not sure that their presence didn't help save Ukraine at it's most vulnerable point during Russia's incursions. The country was desperate and comparatively weak at the time, and it's hard to say no to someone willing to risk his life on one's behalf. Ukrainian people should be, and probably are grateful for their service.
Ukraine itself is demonstrably NOT a Nazi state. They do not espouse the principles and do not act like Nazis. They don't have Charlottesville-like demonstrations nor book burnings nor anti-semitic pogroms. The typical Ukrainian people are, just like Russian people, ordinary folks trying to make a decent living and get on with their lives.
You seem to be saying two different things.
But yes. A third party strike against Russia would be inadvisable. Not going to happen, in fact.
And no. No one with any sense is advocating nuking Russia first.
Then if those with sense ensure Russia isn't nuked first, Russia won't nuke anybody back.
No nuclear war, you and I remain able to live our lives as we see fit.
Glad you are against nuclear war. But again, other posters seem not to realize what an attack on Russia would mean. You answered my question. Where are the others, I wonder - the others who keep cheering on Ukraine. I wonder if they are fine with dying for Ukraine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
A pre-emptive strike by Ukraine with conventional weapons seems like a reasonable course of action to me. If armies are being formed up with the apparent plan to invade Ukraine, they are fair game.
You just mentioned "sense."
Sense dictates not doing that. Ukraine will suffer even more than it already has.
If Zelensky had ANY sense, he'd beg his western bosses to allow him to negotiate a settlement so the fighting can cease and Ukraine can rebuild.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
