You think the US and NATO wouldn't retaliate?
Someone pointed out that the Russian claims couldn't be true, the Khurs couldn't have returned that fast.
This may be more accurate.
Ukraine updates
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
- Status
This may be more accurate.
589 artillery systems in a month?
Someone's got a plan....
Someone's got a plan....
Called it.Really? ROTFLMFAO!!!! America would attack Russia? Conventional weapons or not, that will kick off WW3 that can only end one way. Good explanation.
Also you didn't understand that I was pointing out that you were wrong in implying that the only response by the west to tac nukes being used is in kind. Whooosh.
Also you do know that the US has just as many nukes as Russia AND much fewer targets to spend them on. The US and the old USSR had about 300 population centers to wreck, Russia is half the population and the west has NATO.
But yeah I get it. When Poutine uses nukes, he is smart and being stronk, but when the US replies to said nukes by sinking Naval assets, or manning the Belurus border with peace keepers releasing Ukraine troops for the front, or perhaps stationing the USAF and everything from F-35s to A-10s and anti air assets to wreck everything within Ukraine's old borders, or sending troops to Ukraine itself to wreck shit up with orders not to cross the old borders, or sending fuck tons more drones to Ukraine to fuck over every airfield within 600 miles of the front lines... or why not all of it.
If it is unthinkable for the US to do any of that should Poutine use nukes because Poutine has nukes, it should be equally unthinkable for Poutine to use tactical nukes in the first place.
Let me guess ROTFLMFAO, right, that's your response. You must know that that response makes you come across as a child and a slobbering idiot. That you keep responding that way proves to me and any other rational person watching this that you are not engaged in sincere debate but that just being a trolling asshat.
That mindless quote as you called it, showed you were wrong in thinking the only possible response was to respond to a nuke attack in kind.
You would have to be pretty mindless or a troll not to understand this. Regardless of the wisdom of the general's comments.
And again, why is it nuts to take out the black fleet sea fleet but not nuts for Russia to stop lobbing tactical nukes. Again you do know don't you that the US has nukes. ALso I don't think West Taiwan would be too thrilled if Russia went beyond that line [considering they are facing off vs India who also has nukes] and oh you know who else has nukes doncha... West Taiwan.
You have to be a cultist to take the position that one nuke power can do what ever they want because they have nukes, but another nuke power can't even though they have the same capacity. Or perhaps you think Poutine is absolutely bat shit crazy.
Note: This is not in topic and so will be my last reply regarding Vietnam so as to stop detailing the thread.1: South VIetnam fell because the Americans lost interest.
2: When they did leave nam the south was mostly cleared of VC. Pacification did work.
"
Pacification, once it had been fully
fleshed out, freed South Vietnam from communist subversion and forced the communists to
broker a peace with the United States and to carry out mass military offensives against South
Vietnam as they could no longer win by soft power and ideology. "
I've read similar elsewhere in actual books.
It was a long conflict and the Yanks eventually figured it out after many mistakes.
Also this rando makes a similar point
• That the demilitarized zone (DMZ) at the 17th parallel would remain a provisional dividing line between North and South Vietnam.Letter: The U.S. didn’t lose the Vietnam War
I enjoyed reading Barbara Sweet’s July 4th article Vietnamese boat siblings “www.saltwire.com
• No military movement across the DMZ.
• Would not use force of any kind to unify the country.
Sounds like a win to me. It didn't hold, but again, lost interest.
By the time the US left, South Vietnam was pretty much pacified and the VC couldn't do shit.
The yanks left with a treaty, the North upped the logistics unmolested by air attacks and in time launched a full on conventional attack.
The Americans were not beat by peasants in Pajamas, they beat them, they signed a treaty and lost interest allowing the North to go in and run over the South.
What is odd is that it is VERY hard to actually find this information on line, or maybe my google fu is shit.
It was the US that drove North Vietnam to the treaty table and had them agree to stop. The US was not drivin out of South VIetnam by combat, they just lost interest.
Just like Afghanistan. They were clearly in control, they just lost interest. Sometimes that is the right response.
If you say "I'm taking my ball and going home," you didn't win. Also saying the south was pacified is weird considering everything that happened after the US withdrawal. Clearly it wasn't very well pacified if that's the case.
They won the war in Iraq and failed the occupation. They lost the war in Vietnam so there was no occupation. I respect you posted a source that shares your opinion, but I suggest something more academic. You should be able to find "Historical Commentary: Vietnam and Revisionism" by Culver (an actual historian who has studied the Vietnam war). It has some interesting remarks. Here's a good quote from it;
'General William Westmoreland told a Boston College audience that politicians caused America's defeat in Vietnam. "The Vietnam War was not lost on the battlefield," the Commander of
United States forces in Vietnam said, "but lost in the halls of Congress." '
Westmoreland was there. He should know if it was a loss or not, don't you think?
Some other choice quotes and some remarks from me about them:
'Revisionism salves the national psyche
and restores a self-image of power.' Again, I don't know why Canadians are trying to save the fragile American ego.
'While highly critical of the French for any compromise with communism, the United States moved to establish South Vietnam as a barrier to further communist advances in Southeast
Asia. Containment would consist of restricting communism to North Vietnam and treating South Vietnam as an independent country and part of the "free" world.' As stated: this was one of the core objectives: hold communism to North Vietnam, and that failed. A unified, communist Vietnam did emerge. You can't fail to achieve your objectives but say you "won" because you quit and went home.
'In 1946 Ho had declared, "kill ten of our men and we will kill one of yours. In the end, you will lose and I will win." He was speaking to the French, but the equation applied no less to the Americans. North Vietnam, willing and able to fight longer, would outlast the United States.' The North literally said, "We will lose more people, but you will eventually give up and leave, and that's our condition for declaring victory." Exactly that happened, so the US can't say, "Nah, they lost and we won despite the fact that their objective was achieved using the exact strategy they said they would and we failed to achieve ours." That's inane and I don't know why you're trying to make that argument. It's untenable.
'But the "peace agreements," which provided for a cease-fire and the withdrawal of American troops, did not resolve the political future of South Vietnam, the central issue of the war. The war soon resumed, and in April 1975 the communists marched triumphantly into Saigon, drawing the
painful war to a close.' The key phrase there is "central issue of the war". The North Vietnamese did the thing that the US went to war against them to stop them from doing.
'the United States could have bombed North Vietnam back to the Stone Age and invaded the North. But would the public have supported a costly invasion against a dedicated foe that would
have risked war with China and the Soviet Union (China had threatened to respond if the United States had moved north). In any case, what would
have been left after "Victory?" As Senator Stuart Symington asked of Secretary of State Dean Rusk: "What do we win if we win?" At the least, it would have meant an indefinite American occupation of Vietnam with all its costs and strains.' Note the wording: a "victory" would have resulted in occupation. This is why the Iraq War was a win. The US lost the occupation (because again, if you give up and leave, that's a forfeit, not a victory), but won the war. In Vietnam there was no occupation to lose because the war was never won.
'Revisionism also underestimates the power of Vietnamese nationalism, whose banner had been captured by Ho and whose goal was to rid Vietnam of foreigners.' This drives home the point again: the US leaving was the primary objective of the North, and their strategy to achieve the was pure attrition knowing the US would give up. The North's strategy played out a they predicted. They absolutely outdied the US. And their objective was achieved because of it. Therefore the North won. And if the North won, their opponent can't also have won. The US lost.
'In the end the public recognized that the
American goal of propping up South Vietnam was unachievable.' The objective of the war could not be obtained. So the US gave up and left. That's a loss.
There are several other good books out there. Weirdly enough, "revisionism" when talking about Vietnam used to mean "If we had employed a different military strategy we would have won," because the idea that it wasn't a loss is relatively new. No one back in the 70s or even most of the 80s ever argued the US one. That's even newer "revisionism".
It's very simple: the US realized that their military actions had resulted in creating a situation where they could never achieve their goal (aka it was impossible to win"), so they cut their losses and left. Realizing you can't win and giving up may be smart, but it's not a victory. In sports that's called "conceding", and it's a loss. Likewise, the US conceded in Vietnam. It was 100% not a win, and since the North achieved their objectives it wasn't a stalemate. By every metric, if you don't win and don't stalemate, and if your opinion wins, you lose.
More good news for Addyovski from his beloved Republican Party! CLUSTER BOMBS FOR UKRAINE!
I bet the Tangerine Imbecile can't stop the normal Republican party members from supporting Ukraine if he gets elected.
And finally I get to say something good about the weasel Lindsay Graham.
US senator Lindsay Graham meets Zelensky, calls for supplying ATACMS to Ukraine
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on May 26 and called for supplying long-range ATACMS missiles and cluster munitions to Ukraine, news agency Interfax-Ukraine reported.
The faster ATACMS and cluster munitions are delivered to Ukraine, the more territory Kyiv will be able to liberate and the fewer lives will be lost, he said.
Graham went on to say that he would encourage his colleagues in the Senate and the Biden administration to provide Ukraine with the long-range weapon system.
Good article here.... https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-meets-with-us-senator-graham-in-kyiv/
I bet the Tangerine Imbecile can't stop the normal Republican party members from supporting Ukraine if he gets elected.
And finally I get to say something good about the weasel Lindsay Graham.
US senator Lindsay Graham meets Zelensky, calls for supplying ATACMS to Ukraine
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on May 26 and called for supplying long-range ATACMS missiles and cluster munitions to Ukraine, news agency Interfax-Ukraine reported.
The faster ATACMS and cluster munitions are delivered to Ukraine, the more territory Kyiv will be able to liberate and the fewer lives will be lost, he said.
Graham went on to say that he would encourage his colleagues in the Senate and the Biden administration to provide Ukraine with the long-range weapon system.
Good article here.... https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-meets-with-us-senator-graham-in-kyiv/
Why some Ukrainian soldiers use Nazi-related insignia
You're closely following the living history of a nation bravely resisting an imperialistic war of aggression that has inspired the world when, all of a sudden, you come across a picture of a Ukrainian soldier wearing a Totenkopf "skull and crossbones" patch or giving the Nazi salute.
Rightfully so, the use of Nazi or neo-Nazi-related symbols by Ukrainian combatants is shocking and almost always causes controversy.
These symbols, reminders of some of history's worst crimes against humanity and the attempt to exterminate entire groups of people, are deeply offensive.
Of course, seeing these symbols on soldiers is always distressing, to say the least. While these soldiers do not represent a widespread practice in the Ukrainian military, the use of these symbols nonetheless discredits Ukraine and scares away some potential supporters worldwide.
After almost a decade of reporting on this war, I'd like to chip in with a couple of thoughts on why you might see these symbols on the battlefield in Ukraine. Not to justify these soldiers' decisions — as any use of Nazi symbols should always be condemned — but to offer my explanation for this phenomenon.
So, why are these symbols present on the battlefield?
First of all, let's establish one fact. No, Ukraine does not have "a Nazi problem."
Ukraine is no more "Nazi" than any country that has its small number of misfits who admire Adolf Hitler and form fringe groups and gangs based on those views. Ukraine has its groups like the U.K. has the neo-Nazi organization Combat 18, the Scandinavians have the Nordic Resistance Movement, and the United States has the Aryan Brotherhood.
With absolutely no proof, the Kremlin's war propaganda created the absurd narrative that Ukraine is a full-fledged, World War II-style Nazi nation that needs to be "de-Nazified" as justification for its brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Just like in many places around the world, people with far-right and neo-Nazi views, driven by their ideology, are prone to joining the military and participating in conflicts. One also has to take into account that in Ukraine, nationalism with deep historical roots is tied to a desire for independence from Russia. It has driven many to take up arms to fight in what they believe is an existential war against a neighbor that seeks to subjugate and destroy their country.
Among them, people with far-right views.
This feeling was very real back in 2014, in the early days of Russia's war in Ukraine's eastern Donbas. Ukraine's military was deeply disorganized and disoriented. Ultra-nationalist and far-right groups were among the many others that organized volunteer battalions to fight Russia's invasion in the east.
These groups were aggressive and highly motivated. It is, of course, true that, for instance, the Azov Battalion was originally founded by neo-Nazi and far-right groups (as well as many soccer ultra-fans), which brought along with it the typical aesthetics — not only neo-Nazi insignia but also things like Pagan rituals or names like "The Black Corps," the official newspaper of Nazi Germany's major paramilitary organization Schutzstaffel (SS).
But as with any country, real neo-Nazis in Ukraine were and still are a tiny minority.
All former guerilla groups with far-right ties were quickly absorbed into Ukraine's Armed Forces or the National Guard between 2015-2016 as linear, disciplined, and fully-controlled combat units.
From my experience observing this war over the years since 2014, the Ukrainian military has done a rather good job of "secularizing" and isolating these units from their far-right origins, largely due to pressure from the West.
This policy could be described as "keep your views to yourself and train hard."
This is what happened with Azov. Far more moderate servicemembers rose to prominence (and even to fame during the Battle of Mariupol and the siege of Azovstal), along with military specialists from other branches of service, who joined Azov because they wanted to serve with a highly professional combat unit.
It hasn't helped that, since 2014, some Western journalists have made the supposed "rise of the far right" a staple of their coverage of Ukraine, as headlines of supposed neo-Nazis in the country are consistently attention-grabbing.
And right before the full-scale invasion, certain American journalists wrote about how Ukrainian neo-Nazis were allegedly using the threat of Russia's full-scale invasion to seize power in the country.
But guess what — the Russian invasion did happen, and the neo-Nazi power grab never did. Not only was there no serious evidence ever presented to support claims of an attempted "coup," these fringe elements are nothing compared to Ukraine's state and military machine.
A drop in the ocean, as the saying goes.
Nevertheless, notorious Nazi and quasi-Nazi symbols are sometimes used by soldiers who do not come close to having any extremist or hateful views.
So why is this happening? In the oversimplified memory of some around the world, particularly within various militaristic subcultures, symbols representing the Wehrmacht, Nazi Germany's Armed Forces, and the SS are seen to reflect a super-effective war machine, not the perpetrators of one of the greatest crimes against humanity in human history.
While this, of course, does not absolve these soldiers of wearing extremely offensive insignia, it offers a partial explanation as to why, in my opinion, these symbols have become an integral part of global militaristic subcultures that embrace different historical symbols of war, particularly Nazi ones.
As these insignia were absorbed into militaristic subcultures around the globe, many who wear Nazi patches on their uniforms have come to disassociate these emblems from the crimes committed by their original users 80 years ago.
Although the presence of Nazi symbols on the battlefield generates the most controversy, they are just a fraction of the militaristic emblems embraced by combatants worldwide. Norse and pseudo-Norse, or Viking, symbols of war — the very symbols that the Nazis themselves used to create their own insignia — are also very common.
The culture of modern war patches, a strange, pseudo-art form in militaristic subcultures, has developed into a standalone phenomenon in which those who bear them sometimes completely divorce their modern use with any former ideology. And some symbols hardly have any ideology behind them at all – such as the ubiquitous Punisher skull patch coming from the famous Marvel show.
This phenomenon is hardly unique to Ukraine.
One might remember a scandal over the fact that U.S. Marines Scout Snipers used the SS runes as their unofficial symbol. In 2012, they thought it was a good idea to take a picture of themselves posing next to an SS flag in Afghanistan, prompting swift action from the Corps.
Russia's propaganda created and cultivated for years the myth about the Ukrainian far-right, inflating their numbers and so-called power within the country. Many Western journalists have built their entire careers feeding off of Moscow's narrative.
The irony is that Russia has long promoted not only Nazi-style symbols but Nazi practices, morphing into a fascist state that has made war crimes part of its foreign policy.
The Russian far-right and neo-Nazi paramilitary unit Rusich uses both the swastika and the 88 symbol, a neo-Nazi numerical code for "Heil Hitler."
Dmitriy Utkin, the alleged co-founder and top commander of the notorious mercenary army Wagner Group, has a large swastika and the Wehrmacht symbol tattooed on his body. And yes, he goes under the nom-de-guerre Wagner not because he's a big fan of the opera. Hitler was a great admirer of the 19th-century German composer Richard Wagner and glorified him during his reign.
Russia's official policy is ethnic cleansing, killing those speaking Ukrainian, kidnapping Ukrainian children and raising them as Russian, and denying a nation of 40 million the right to exist.
For some Ukrainians, the use of some of these symbols is meant to overtly demonstrate a fierce opposition to Russia – which, for its part, is insanely obsessed with the aggressive weaponization of everything about the Soviet Union's role in World War II, which Russian propaganda portrays as largely a Soviet defeat of the Nazis and fascism.
So yes, while Nazi symbols are not widespread within Ukraine's military, it is still a difficult issue that needs to be resolved.
If I were in charge of such things, I'd enforce severe punitive action for wearing Nazi-related insignia. Nazi symbols do not deserve to be on a Ukrainian soldier's shoulder in this war, where Ukraine is fighting for the very fundamental values the free democratic world is built on.
A military has all kinds of people — and Ukraine's is a very large one. With all of its branches, Ukraine's Defense Force now has some 1 million people in ranks.
And problematic pictures of those who think it's "cool" to wear Nazi-related insignia represent nothing but the attitudes of a select few – not the entirety of this military and, least of all, of this nation.
kyivindependent.com
You're closely following the living history of a nation bravely resisting an imperialistic war of aggression that has inspired the world when, all of a sudden, you come across a picture of a Ukrainian soldier wearing a Totenkopf "skull and crossbones" patch or giving the Nazi salute.
Rightfully so, the use of Nazi or neo-Nazi-related symbols by Ukrainian combatants is shocking and almost always causes controversy.
These symbols, reminders of some of history's worst crimes against humanity and the attempt to exterminate entire groups of people, are deeply offensive.
Of course, seeing these symbols on soldiers is always distressing, to say the least. While these soldiers do not represent a widespread practice in the Ukrainian military, the use of these symbols nonetheless discredits Ukraine and scares away some potential supporters worldwide.
After almost a decade of reporting on this war, I'd like to chip in with a couple of thoughts on why you might see these symbols on the battlefield in Ukraine. Not to justify these soldiers' decisions — as any use of Nazi symbols should always be condemned — but to offer my explanation for this phenomenon.
So, why are these symbols present on the battlefield?
First of all, let's establish one fact. No, Ukraine does not have "a Nazi problem."
Ukraine is no more "Nazi" than any country that has its small number of misfits who admire Adolf Hitler and form fringe groups and gangs based on those views. Ukraine has its groups like the U.K. has the neo-Nazi organization Combat 18, the Scandinavians have the Nordic Resistance Movement, and the United States has the Aryan Brotherhood.
With absolutely no proof, the Kremlin's war propaganda created the absurd narrative that Ukraine is a full-fledged, World War II-style Nazi nation that needs to be "de-Nazified" as justification for its brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Just like in many places around the world, people with far-right and neo-Nazi views, driven by their ideology, are prone to joining the military and participating in conflicts. One also has to take into account that in Ukraine, nationalism with deep historical roots is tied to a desire for independence from Russia. It has driven many to take up arms to fight in what they believe is an existential war against a neighbor that seeks to subjugate and destroy their country.
Among them, people with far-right views.
This feeling was very real back in 2014, in the early days of Russia's war in Ukraine's eastern Donbas. Ukraine's military was deeply disorganized and disoriented. Ultra-nationalist and far-right groups were among the many others that organized volunteer battalions to fight Russia's invasion in the east.
These groups were aggressive and highly motivated. It is, of course, true that, for instance, the Azov Battalion was originally founded by neo-Nazi and far-right groups (as well as many soccer ultra-fans), which brought along with it the typical aesthetics — not only neo-Nazi insignia but also things like Pagan rituals or names like "The Black Corps," the official newspaper of Nazi Germany's major paramilitary organization Schutzstaffel (SS).
But as with any country, real neo-Nazis in Ukraine were and still are a tiny minority.
All former guerilla groups with far-right ties were quickly absorbed into Ukraine's Armed Forces or the National Guard between 2015-2016 as linear, disciplined, and fully-controlled combat units.
From my experience observing this war over the years since 2014, the Ukrainian military has done a rather good job of "secularizing" and isolating these units from their far-right origins, largely due to pressure from the West.
This policy could be described as "keep your views to yourself and train hard."
This is what happened with Azov. Far more moderate servicemembers rose to prominence (and even to fame during the Battle of Mariupol and the siege of Azovstal), along with military specialists from other branches of service, who joined Azov because they wanted to serve with a highly professional combat unit.
It hasn't helped that, since 2014, some Western journalists have made the supposed "rise of the far right" a staple of their coverage of Ukraine, as headlines of supposed neo-Nazis in the country are consistently attention-grabbing.
And right before the full-scale invasion, certain American journalists wrote about how Ukrainian neo-Nazis were allegedly using the threat of Russia's full-scale invasion to seize power in the country.
But guess what — the Russian invasion did happen, and the neo-Nazi power grab never did. Not only was there no serious evidence ever presented to support claims of an attempted "coup," these fringe elements are nothing compared to Ukraine's state and military machine.
A drop in the ocean, as the saying goes.
Nevertheless, notorious Nazi and quasi-Nazi symbols are sometimes used by soldiers who do not come close to having any extremist or hateful views.
So why is this happening? In the oversimplified memory of some around the world, particularly within various militaristic subcultures, symbols representing the Wehrmacht, Nazi Germany's Armed Forces, and the SS are seen to reflect a super-effective war machine, not the perpetrators of one of the greatest crimes against humanity in human history.
While this, of course, does not absolve these soldiers of wearing extremely offensive insignia, it offers a partial explanation as to why, in my opinion, these symbols have become an integral part of global militaristic subcultures that embrace different historical symbols of war, particularly Nazi ones.
As these insignia were absorbed into militaristic subcultures around the globe, many who wear Nazi patches on their uniforms have come to disassociate these emblems from the crimes committed by their original users 80 years ago.
Although the presence of Nazi symbols on the battlefield generates the most controversy, they are just a fraction of the militaristic emblems embraced by combatants worldwide. Norse and pseudo-Norse, or Viking, symbols of war — the very symbols that the Nazis themselves used to create their own insignia — are also very common.
The culture of modern war patches, a strange, pseudo-art form in militaristic subcultures, has developed into a standalone phenomenon in which those who bear them sometimes completely divorce their modern use with any former ideology. And some symbols hardly have any ideology behind them at all – such as the ubiquitous Punisher skull patch coming from the famous Marvel show.
This phenomenon is hardly unique to Ukraine.
One might remember a scandal over the fact that U.S. Marines Scout Snipers used the SS runes as their unofficial symbol. In 2012, they thought it was a good idea to take a picture of themselves posing next to an SS flag in Afghanistan, prompting swift action from the Corps.
Russia's propaganda created and cultivated for years the myth about the Ukrainian far-right, inflating their numbers and so-called power within the country. Many Western journalists have built their entire careers feeding off of Moscow's narrative.
The irony is that Russia has long promoted not only Nazi-style symbols but Nazi practices, morphing into a fascist state that has made war crimes part of its foreign policy.
The Russian far-right and neo-Nazi paramilitary unit Rusich uses both the swastika and the 88 symbol, a neo-Nazi numerical code for "Heil Hitler."
Dmitriy Utkin, the alleged co-founder and top commander of the notorious mercenary army Wagner Group, has a large swastika and the Wehrmacht symbol tattooed on his body. And yes, he goes under the nom-de-guerre Wagner not because he's a big fan of the opera. Hitler was a great admirer of the 19th-century German composer Richard Wagner and glorified him during his reign.
Russia's official policy is ethnic cleansing, killing those speaking Ukrainian, kidnapping Ukrainian children and raising them as Russian, and denying a nation of 40 million the right to exist.
For some Ukrainians, the use of some of these symbols is meant to overtly demonstrate a fierce opposition to Russia – which, for its part, is insanely obsessed with the aggressive weaponization of everything about the Soviet Union's role in World War II, which Russian propaganda portrays as largely a Soviet defeat of the Nazis and fascism.
So yes, while Nazi symbols are not widespread within Ukraine's military, it is still a difficult issue that needs to be resolved.
If I were in charge of such things, I'd enforce severe punitive action for wearing Nazi-related insignia. Nazi symbols do not deserve to be on a Ukrainian soldier's shoulder in this war, where Ukraine is fighting for the very fundamental values the free democratic world is built on.
A military has all kinds of people — and Ukraine's is a very large one. With all of its branches, Ukraine's Defense Force now has some 1 million people in ranks.
And problematic pictures of those who think it's "cool" to wear Nazi-related insignia represent nothing but the attitudes of a select few – not the entirety of this military and, least of all, of this nation.
Illia Ponomarenko: Why some Ukrainian soldiers use Nazi-related insignia
You're closely following the living history of a nation bravely resisting an imperialistic war of aggression that has inspired the world when, all of a sudden, you come across a picture of a Ukrainian soldier wearing a Totenkopf "skull and crossbones" patch or giving the Nazi salute. Rightfully...
kyivindependent.com
What Petraeus said made sense to you????! Wtf? Any attack on Russia by America, conventional or not, no matter the target, no matter the reason would result in an all out world war. What Petraeus said was fucking crazy and not a policy of America nor NATO. You people are out of your fucking skulls to even post something so moronic. I'll tell, what is going to happen if Russia goes all out, ABC or not. Nothing. Because the alternative is unthinkable.
Wait, we could just stop and agree to disagree? No fighting to the death. No ROTFLMAO? On the internet. Seems kinda wrong brah.
Also you mentioned sources. I have better sources but they are very hard to find on line and alas I sold those books ages ago. I didn't pick the google fu lifestyle, the google fu lifestyle chose me.
As for Westmoreland, kinda sounds like he is saying the US doesn't lose wars, they lose interest.
There is a scene from Good Will Hunting where Ben Afleck's character says the highlight of his say is when he goes to pick Will up and he hopes he won't answer the door [because he decided to use his talents instead of doing grunt work]
I kinda am feeling that right now. I go on the thread and I hope for something, but it doesn't happen.
At least there is @DinkleMouse. Whats his face should be more like Dinklemouse and less not like Dinklemouse.
Doesn't matter if it does or doesn't, it illustrates that there are options other than responding in kind.
However if we are expected to clutch our pearls and whine in unison every time Russia does something because they have nukes, shouldn't Poutine do the same thing. A point I've made multiple times.
If Poutine plays stupid games [which I seriously doubt he will] and he starts losing assets on the high seas [and the African American sea] what is his option, launching nukes at the US, he does not have the military strength to do anything else. That is a suicide move, he launches nukes, he gets hit back. Considering the lower readiness levels of his nukes even in the best of estimates both in launching and and the detonating and the damage done from decades of corruption, have the wiring perhaps been sold off for vodka by anyone from a private to a general, the fuel sold off, the communication links to the silos etc and considering NATO is actually much bigger and more spread out, we would be seriously hurt, the Russians would be fucked up many times worse.
You said NATO wouldn't do shit if Russia uses tactical nukes, it seems your thesis is based on because Russia has loads of strategic nukes. Well I counter that if Naval assets start getting sunk beyond the 12 mile limit on international waters, if NATO assets start fucking Russian gear ON Ukraine clay, what will Russia do. Absolutely nothing, because
Because we've got the bombs, okay?
John Wayne's not dead, he's frozen
And as soon as we find a cure for cancer
We're gonna thaw out the Duke, and he's gonna be pretty pissed off
You know why?
Have you ever taken a cold shower?
Well, multiply that by fifteen million times
That's how pissed off the Duke's gonna be
I'm gonna get the Duke, and John Cassavetes
And Lee Marvin, and Sam Peckinpah, and a case of whiskey
And drive down to Ukraine and...
The difference is we can fuck with Russia without crossing the nuclear threshold, they can't fuck with us without going full potato.
And for Poutine to go full potato because of conventional attacks that are not even on Russian clay would be an insane and extreme overreaction.
"There are essentially six options. One, ignore it, two, file a protest, three, issue a statement condemning it, four, cut off aid, five, sever diplomatic relations, six, declare war. Now, if we ignore it, we tacitly acknowledge it, if we file a protest it'll be ignored, if we issue a statement it will seem weak, we can't cut off aid because we're not giving any, if we sever relations we risk losing the oil contract and if we declare war... people might just think we're overreacting." [for an African leader giving an incendiary speech.
Smashing gear outside of Russia for them using tactical nukes and breaking the international bro code is far from overreacting. Going full nuclear potato in response to losing assets outside of the country because you broke the international bro code would be even more of an overreaction.
Lol
Westmoreland: "The US lost."
You: "It doesn't sound like Westmoreland is saying the US lost."
NotADoctor but clearly also NotAHistorian.
Last edited:
I’d like to thank all Canadian taxpayers for helping killing Russian scum. Even if your head is full of maga or tankie bullshit, you are still helping! Thank you all!
Strelkov predicting a coup attempt by Prigozhin this summer.
Prigozhin appears to be maneuvring in that very direction. Muzhiki, maybe the conversation is changing?!
- Status
