War in Ukraine

#69,802
#69,802
Rasputin_Vol said:
The Europeans are banking on getting gas from Africa to replace Russian gas... Looks like one of these pipeline projects will be in jeopardy now if Niger flips...

Trans-Saharan gas pipeline - Wikipedia

800px-Gas_pipelines_across_Mediterranee_and_Sahara_map-en.svg.png
Click to expand...
You can almost feel @Rasputin_Vol's giddiness. Such a true believer in mother Russia
 
#69,808
#69,808
hog88 said:
LOL

I think you need to read the article. Name the last conventional war between nuclear armed nations. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

As I stated, skirmishes not wars. But the article cites several examples including US and Russian conventional troops battling each other in Syria.

Regardless, Russia and Ukraine are obviously in a war and Russia is nuclear-armed. Moreover, Ukraine is now hitting Russia deep in the motherland around Moscow with drones and blowing up their precious Crimean bridge (repeatedly) in land they consider "theirs" yet...

Russian nuclear arms sit idle.

Why?

Because Russia knows if they retaliate with nukes, NATO will have no option but to enjoin the war and defend Ukraine. And - interestingly - it's not because our military brass has been threatening a nuclear retaliation. Instead, we've apparently told the Russians that it would be our *conventional* troops that would be drawn into the war.

So much for your theory.
 
Last edited:
#69,810
#69,810
MontyPython said:
As I stated, skirmishes not wars.

Regardless, Russia and Ukraine are obviously in a war and Russia is nuclear-armed. Moreover, Ukraine is now hitting Russia deep in the motherland around Moscow with drones and blowing up their precious Crimean bridge (repeatedly) in land they consider "theirs" yet...

Russian nuclear arms sit idle.

So much for your theory.
Click to expand...

Ukraine is not a nuclear armed nation and hasn't invaded Russia, Russia has no justification for using nuclear weapons inside Ukraine.

If Russia attacked a NATO member the US, France and England who are all nuclear powers would be obligated to enter the war which would most likely escalate into a nuclear conflict. Hence why Russia isn't going to attack a member of NATO so spending on Ukraine is not spending on NATO defense.
 
#69,811
#69,811
hog88 said:
...If Russia attacked a NATO member the US, France and England who are all nuclear powers would be obligated to enter the war which would most likely escalate into a nuclear conflict. Hence why Russia isn't going to attack a member of NATO so spending on Ukraine is not spending on NATO defense.
Click to expand...

Heh. You might wanna freshen up on your NATO purpose and goals.

By helping Ukraine's defense, NATO members are - of course - pursuing what's best for NATO and their own collective defense.

Next I'm guessing you're gonna post that Lincoln is buried in Grant's tomb.
 
#69,812
#69,812
LouderVol said:
They've lost a good chunk, maybe 30-40% of the territory they held in May 2022.
They don't even hold all of the area's they claim as their own territory.
They haven't won the war.
They have had to deal with the reality of not being as popular amongst the Ukrainians as they thought.
They lost their Black Sea Flag Ship.
All of their great tech has turned into a big nothing. Hypersonic missiles CAN be shot down regularly. The T-14 had to be deployed to their rear lines to stabilize and still wasn't reliable enough to be counted on, and had to be withdrawn from the small military functions its had.
It took them 10 months to take 1 town. Still waiting on that next great offensive you promised was going to happen because Bakhmut was SOOOO key to everything.
They had very public spat with their only offense capable military, that ended with Wagner leaving the frontlines.
They had to draft an additional 500,000, after thinking their 150k were going to do something.
They lost as least that many Russians to defection when the draft was announced.
NATO did expand and increase their border with Russia.
They haven't been able to honor their military alliance with Armenia, who had to lose a chunk of territory.
They have had their allies, like Kazakhstan, publicly rebuke their efforts to draft their army.
They haven't been able to maintain their previous weapon deals with India. India who was supposed to be this new found counter to the west.
Putin hasn't been able to leave the country, even to go hang with his BRICS buddies in SA, because he would get arrested.
The Ukrainians are still able to launch offensives and guerilla attacks. I never thought Ukraine would be at the point to be able to strike at Moscow. Crimea isn't safe for Russians and in danger of getting cut off. and even with how ineffective they have been any offensive by Ukraine is impressive, because no one thought they would still be in this fight.
They have had to dig out T-55s and other old Soviet tech despite claiming the worlds best war manufacturing.
They have gotten desperate enough to renege on their Grain Deals.
They lost a huge chunk of their elite forces. A top Russian general's rare admission that his elite paratroopers suffered heavy casualties in Ukraine was mysteriously removed
Click to expand...
1691590571593.gif
 
#69,813
#69,813
Rasputin_Vol said:
How can it be a tie when Ukraine has lost ~20% territory and likely over 300k KIAs? Just 42k in this 2 month counteroffensive?.
Click to expand...
Ukraine had lost quite a bit more but has liberated 50% of what was taken. That has been shown in several media sources. Yes tied at half time. You need to double up on your copium dosage Moe.
 
#69,818
#69,818
MontyPython said:
Heh. You might wanna freshen up on your NATO purpose and goals.

By helping Ukraine's defense, NATO members are - of course - pursuing what's best for NATO and their own collective defense.

Next I'm guessing you're gonna post that Lincoln is buried in Grant's tomb.
Click to expand...

Dud you are eat up with the Z fanboi craze. Russia could have taken Ukraine in it's entirety and no NATO member would be in danger of being invaded, NATO members spending on Ukraine has nothing to do with the NATO defense spending agreement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#69,820
#69,820
hog88 said:
Dud you are eat up with the Z fanboi craze. Russia could have taken Ukraine in it's entirety and no NATO member would be in danger of being invaded, NATO members spending on Ukraine has nothing to do with the NATO defense spending agreement.
Click to expand...

How, exactly, could you *know* this, Hogg?

Answer: You can't and you don't. There are huge inherent risks in presuming that your opinion is correct.

Fortunately, those in charge here in the US - who are far more informed that you or I - recognize the risk of appeasement to the tune of backing Ukraine with $75+ billion.

quote-my-good-friends-for-the-second-time-in-our-history-a-british-prime-minister-has-returned...jpg
 
#69,821
#69,821
MontyPython said:
How, exactly, could you *know* this, Hogg?

Answer: You can't and you don't. There are huge inherent risks in presuming that your opinion is correct.

Fortunately, those in charge here in the US - who are far more informed that you or I - recognize the risk to the tune of backing Ukraine with $75+ billion.

View attachment 568748
Click to expand...

Almost 75 years of history proves me correct.

Keep licking the boots of those that have you bent over.
 
#69,823
#69,823
MontyPython said:
How, exactly, could you *know* this, Hogg?

Answer: You can't and you don't. There are huge inherent risks in presuming that your opinion is correct.

Fortunately, those in charge here in the US - who are far more informed that you or I - recognize the risk of appeasement to the tune of backing Ukraine with $75+ billion.

View attachment 568748
Click to expand...
You realize Chamberlain gave Poland something like 9 million pounds and a bunch of equipment right?
that 9 million pounds is equivalent to almost 14 billion in today's dollars.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top