Well comrade, the facts are the facts, as unpleasant as they may seem to you. I am a realist.
Zelensky condemns NATO leaders (and I agree with him)
- Thread starter fall
- Start date
Come on comrade, don't be shy, you're a pro-Putin propagandist, you've always been. Your realist shtick doesn't fool anyone.
I am just neutral vs all the anti russian crap. Fact is, if the Ukraine air force still exists how can a 40 mile long convoy of targets sit just outside the capital unmolested? The propaganda has clouded your judgment of facts and logic. That is what its supposed to do. If you can't win, live to fight another day. A Russia without security is not good for the world. There is no security for us if Russia has none. That is the reality. Putin is a product of his environment.
What strategies one can one propose to Zelensky and NATO to for the
protection of the Ukrainians and not be called pro-Putin.I can only think
of:
1) Ukrainian soldiers fighting to their death.
2) Army running away and join the refugees
fleeing to Europe.
3) Surrender and prepare to subjugate.
4) Negotiate for withdrawal of the Russian force
in exchange for giving up on NATO.
5) Stepping up sanctions on Russia.
6) Sanctions oil and natural gas exports FOR REAL
so not one drop of Putin's oil will be consumed
outside Russia other than by his tanks.
Russia has security, the security that ensures that NATO will never invade Russia is also the same security that ensures that NATO will not get involved in the Ukrainian conflict, 7000+ nukes.
Putin invading Ukraine has nothing to do with Russian security.
You clearly do not understand how nuclear weapons and delivery systems are evolving. Hypersonic non-ballistic missiles change the game and start making first strike "decapitation" strikes possible and poke huge holes in traditional early warning systems. For example. From Kaliningrad the Russians can take out every EU capital in about 7 mins with a nuclear weapon today. This is why encroachment is so dangerous. The US is starting to work on similar weapons and terminated the ABM treaty. How does that serve global security. If Ukraine is not about security then what is the point of a risky and very expensive war?
The opportunity to negotiate a mutual security agreement was offered, and the US and Ukraine response was FUCK OFF. So war it is. I said this and here we are.
1) Ukrainian soldiers fighting to their death.
YEAH!!
2) Army running away and join the refugees
fleeing to Europe.
you Putin lover
3) Surrender and prepare to subjugate.
Putin poodle
4) Negotiate for withdrawal of the Russian force
in exchange for giving up on NATO.
Sell out Putin lover
5) Stepping up sanctions on Russia.
YEAH!!!
6) Sanctions oil and natural gas exports FOR REAL
so not one drop of Putin's oil will be consumed
outside Russia other than by his tanks.
YEAH!!! (Except China and India are not on board)
As brave and strong a leader Zelensky turned out to be, he's wrong in this. The doctrine of mutual assured destruction has different moves than a conventional war. NATO could crush Russia in a conventional war, so this decision isn't a matter of them being weak. It's a matter of them playing a dangerous game of chess with a nuclear power. What matters if NATO takes the king if our opponent blows up the board?
It'd be different if Ukraine was part of NATO prior to Putin's invasion. The pieces would be arrayed differently.
Enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine would bring NATO into direct confrontation with Russia, and it'd be NATO who had escalated. Paranoid as Putin currently is and feeling he has to beat his chest, he'd probably respond with his own escalation, and each time the conflict gets ratcheted up, the more chance of a mistake that results in the death of civilization as we know it.
I feel for Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, as they see their country torn apart by Putin. But Putin is the enemy, and bares the responsibility, not NATO.
It'd be different if Ukraine was part of NATO prior to Putin's invasion. The pieces would be arrayed differently.
Enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine would bring NATO into direct confrontation with Russia, and it'd be NATO who had escalated. Paranoid as Putin currently is and feeling he has to beat his chest, he'd probably respond with his own escalation, and each time the conflict gets ratcheted up, the more chance of a mistake that results in the death of civilization as we know it.
I feel for Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, as they see their country torn apart by Putin. But Putin is the enemy, and bares the responsibility, not NATO.
You think wars are fought only for security?
Interesting characterization of what went down.
Russia has subs with nuclear missiles, it can park off the coast of whatever country and launch missiles that hit within minutes. Bringing fantasy weapons into the equation does not change anything.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. An ICBM has a min range as it has to travel through space. That min range is about 5000 km. You can''t just aim an ICBM at a target 500 KM away. Yes they can launch cruise missiles, but those only go 5-800 KPH. So you can see them coming and shoot them down. Hypersonics travel at MACH 5-7. Iskander is not a fantasy weapon. Its been deployed for several years.
Neutrally repeating whatever RT and Sputnik news tell you to.
Sorry but the analysis of why Putin wants a buffer against NATO tank invasion on the North European plain is based on 1950's soviet doctrine, not modern reality. And that whole thing about owning nukes. The only two reasons that make sense for Putin are wanting to prevent Ukraine from exploiting natural gas and shale reserves that could compete with Russia and his idolization of Stalin and wanting to control all the Stalin did.
Franky is watching too much CNN where they nobly report Russian military casualties and Ukrainians civilian casualties....there's zero report of how many casualties the Ukrainians military had...Ukraine isn't winning this war with no outside help.
You just love making up shit don't you.
Russia's got a point: The U.S. broke a NATO promise - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
What, are you now going to accuse the LA Times of repeating what RT and Sputnik tells them to?
Ah, neutrality and realism, Putin apologists always hiding behind those. How's the pay comrade, or is it on a voluntary basis?
Speaking of propaganda, this is not about security, and nobody's attacking Russia or massing their armies to invade,
but keep repeating the big lies and they'll stick, Putin lives in the past and is still butt hurt and can't get over the collapse of the USSR.
You got one thing right, Ukraine will live and fight another day, they survived 2 butchers in the 20th century, they'll survive this gangster.
Putin hasn't moved in the last few days.
That 60km convoy has been stuck for 6 days now.
15,000 people with no supplies.
The only thing that's changed is they are sending out more jets.
But maybe that's because he's out of fuel trucks.
