Topic: Russian act of war - page 2. (Read 976 times)

That was my entire point, the joint resources of the "Free World" were used post-WWII to build up Bundesrepublik and S.Korea.
S.Korea was for China's admiration, while Western Germany was for Eastern Europe and USSR.
The West took Ukraine from USSR in 1991. So where are it's riches?

I'll tell you a secret: that would be the least of Putin's concerns. A huge, rich neighbour buying natural gas and petrol at world prices, without trying to cheat every January, would be always good.
Even rocket launching sites on land would be not as bad: a rocket launched from land can be intercepted not far from the launching site.
The scary thing was NATO occupation of Crimea and uncontrolled military ships traffic in Black Sea because of that: a rocket launched from a ship has a chance to succeed.
So seriously speaking, when Odessa will fall, this direction of attack on Russia can be abandoned all together. Either fall of Odessa, or Turkey becoming outwardly anti-Ango-Saxon.
But there are 4 or 5 more directions. Question is, can US engage all or most of them at once.

I'm just going to drop this here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#2018_Human_Development_Index


For some reason you think life in Russia is better than life in South Korea? You're dead wrong.

Russia lists 49th. South Korea lists 22nd.

Germany lists 5th.


I'm fairly certain if "capitalist" west took over Ukraine, the quality of life would increase dramatically for the average Ukrainian. The Iron Curtain nation states were an entire failure, just like the USSR.

UK, US, Australia and Canada are doing that since 2013. It's not helping apparently.

I wasn't speaking of "mercenaries" by the way, those get paid by multinationals so it's difficult to say whose losses they are.

And why do you think Russia can afford 5:1 losses in 2018-2019 Ukrainian campaign? To achieve what?
Just because you are sure that was kind of losses it had in WWII?
Does Ukraine have, umm, natural resources, or vaults full of gold, or rich debtors around the world with collateral and hostages ensuring repayment?
Or is your reasoning "Russia will invade Ukraine because:.."
Putin will avenge fall of USSR that way;
Putin will prevent Ukraine being turned into a "shiny example of the capitalist way of development", like West Germany and South Korea after WWII? That turning into a shop window-pane has patently failed without him, during last 4 years.

That's actually irrelevant. They are not "defending homeland", they are sent to kill civilians of Donbass who revolted against Poroshenko's dictatorship.
And the dictator cannot admit that taxi drivers and coal miners fend off his armies counting in tens of thousands.
And cannot catch any Armed Forces from Russia, not a single one, not only him, but UN could not do that as well.

Also, a little known fact, when they were surrounded near Ilovaysk or Debaltsevo, they were given option to abandon their military vehicles, put down arms and get out alive. This was done in Syria all the time, and militants disarmed and escaped to retrain with Western instructors and get better weapons and ammunition, and assault Asad again with fresh zeal.
The Ukrainian commanders in that situation preferred to attempt to break out. So they valued vehicles more than human lives.

Huh; didn't know Ukrainians were that shitty of fighters. I knew that Russian forces were really shitty compared to America after these events: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html


Perhaps America can start training Ukrainians on how to fight well.

Oh yeah.
For every 1 Donetsk and Lugansk militant killed, it was more like 10 Ukrainian soldiers lost in 2014-2015.
By international law, a Commander in Chief that faces such heavy losses has to capitulate to prevent further loss of population.
So after having lost around 40000 Poroshenko stopped his offensives.

Let me remind you that combat-related losses of Armed Forces of Russia, excluding various "private companies" and volunteers, are exactly 0 (zero) so far in and around Ukraine. So who has most to lose?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/03/ukraine-sends-troops-russian-border-amid-fears-invasion/


Defending their lands... let's see the Russian shills attack this action.

The war has been going on for 4 years, if someone does not know.

I hope the Russian troops get rekt by Ukraine soldiers. I'm willing to bet for each Ukrainian soldier defending their homeland, it'll take 5 Russians to kill.

Then again, looking at the KDR of American Commandos last time Russia attacked with their weak mercenaries, they got absolutely destroyed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html


===

https://thehill.com/policy/international/419061-russia-trump-canceled-putin-meeting-over-domestic-political-situation

Ahahaha! Putin agrees with my theory. Shit.

I could not agree more.

https://www.concordmonitor.com/Ukraine-urges-NATO-to-deploy-ships-in-dispute-with-Russia-21861660

Will NATO actually act? Probably not, but hopefully.

Ukraine should invite in a ship parade in the Sea of Azov and grant permission to blow the fuck out of anything that stands in the way from doing the parade.

For me it looks like the real reason for canceling the meeting, but this is not Trump’s decision sure thing but his administration’s. There must have been more than "I don't like this situation" tweet.
But still ridiculous.

>>just a reasonable excuse.
Trump's reasonable excuse for Putin is the cancellation of two other meetings with Erdogan and someone else. He really doesn't wanna hurt his buddy.

You beat me to it. To be honest; I don't think that's the true reason why Trump cancelled the meeting; just a reasonable excuse.

I bet by February, Trump will be unable to leave the country due to the on-going investigations.

Well, that escalated quickly. Didn't expect this tbh

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/29/politics/donald-trump-cancel-vladimir-putin-meeting/index.html

Russians using airforce to engage. Did not know!

That's crazy. Maybe if Russia doesn't invade before January, the house democrats will be able to negotiate more weaponry for investigation into the Manafort case.



At least Ukraine's people aren't being targeted by her own government.

On the bright side; at least Russia hasn't invaded entirely yet.

Protecting national interests > presidential ratings.

Well, Poland is pretty scare. All by herself.
Germany and France rejected idea to introduce new sanctions. And expressed concern about the Martial Law.
So it starts looking that Poroshenko either followed someone's bad advice, or engaged his military in his own stupid
poorly calculated initiative with this maritime provocation.
His rating fell anyway. Already, on the 1st day of Martial Law.

The UK still has an active military? Rofl, that's pretty surprising.

Nah, I was thinking Germany, France, and Poland.

Yall think the UK really would make that much of a difference in a EU vs Russia conventional war?

It can be EU or UK which broke away from EU due to Putin's trickery.
You will say they scared the shit out of him, after they broke away because of him.
All your reasoning is self-contradictory as it stems from MSM with their endless cognitive dissonances.
You will find the explanation, even if the reverse happens: Ukraine occupies Krasnodar and Sochi.
I am sure you will explain it away.

Ukraine isn't part of NATO. Even if it were, the largest member of NATO has a Russia-agent as a leader; so doubt defenses would be allowed from NATO.

Nah, this is more a European Union issue rather than a NATO issue.