Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 215. (Read 77449 times)

Looks like they retracted their letter. But, the reasons they state for doing so, are actually just the opposite of what happens at the conclusion of a war.


"Progressive" Democrats Formally Retract Call For Diplomacy As Ukraine War Hawks Steamroll Dissent

@Branko

I just saw a video that may make you reconsider if the RF has anything to do with you beloved anti-capitalist figthers.

https://youtu.be/ZAMz5kgb7V4

Income inequality is Moskva size compared to a boat.



Ahhh.... so it is the west who is saying that Putin is using the "N" word... there is nothing real to it? Nothing like Adolf Putin broadcasting an staged meeting with his Chief Psychos telling them to "ready the nuclear forces" nor any program in RF TV where commentators or opinion wannabe leaders speaking about how RF could use the "N" weapons?

You mean is all an invention from the west? Nothing like prime time news Dmitry Kiselyov depicting how the UK would look after an "N" attack. You trolls need to do much much better.

https://youtu.be/YyhTw-ZHTiE?t=36

https://youtu.be/Bn0XfCYhd2U

Any mention of the "N" word is a serious threat, it is not something you mention to your friends over a cup of vodka and has in itself diplomatic weight. There is no other use for it. There is no other point in showing a Satan in a parade.

As of now, there is far too much use of the "N" word in the RF. It could be because internally reinforces the Kremlin narrative of "being the victim and under attack" (ridiculous at it sounds) while "being strong" and "a culture" (even more ridiculous. Killing is not a culture, and destroying is a sign of weakness).

Can you provide prooflink? I have not seen in the Russian media calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. It simply makes no sense - it does not bring any benefits to Russia and exposes it to a huge reputational risk.

He's threatening to use nuclear weapons.

Other Russian leaders and Russian media are calling for tactical nukes to be used in Ukraine.

Hes pretending like parts of Ukraine are actually Russia now, which sure looks like he's setting the stage for claiming he used nukes because Russia was the one being invaded.

And you blame western media for reporting threats of nuclear war.

Classic example of leaving out the important parts.  Like 'for what?'  All I've ever heard Putin say is that the 'for what' is to protect the integrity of the Russian federation against attack.  That's the policy of every country to fight back against such a threat with whatever methods they might have at their disposal.

The U.S. has a stated 'posture' for the use of nuclear weapons which states that they can be use for, among other reasons, to let adversaries know that we are not hesitant to use them.  I've never seen such a policy expresses by the Russians (or anyone else.)

Indeed, there are some instances reported which I cannot rule out as having been the use of nuclear weapons.  Let me see if I can dig up a vid I spotted the other day which succinctly covers some of these.  I have been aware of all of them more-or-less as the happened, and it doesn't cover an incident which happened in Syria circa 2004 under Cheney and corresponding to a B-52 showing up in Florida with 5 nuclear bombs under it's wings which escaped custody controls.  The 6th space for a weapon was void.

  https://www.bitchute.com/channel/8pFMhTMF5XRK/

The whole channel.  I don't know the technology of thermobarics, exotic nuclear weapons, various kinds of chemical explosions, etc, to have even what I would call a 'belief' on any of these incidents.  But given the U.S.'s published nuclear defense posture I certainly wouldn't rule out 'experiments' on desperately poor countries who have no means to fight back against being 'mini-nuked', and no faith at all that the 'collective West' would utter a peep about it were the U.S. to be playing around with such devices and performing experiments.

Putin says Russia will use “all the tools at its disposal. This is not a bluff" and you blame Western Media...

I keep reading in the lamestream media about 'Biden warns Putin that use of nukes in Ukraine would be a mistake' and blah, blah, blah.  This is utterly absurd of course as there is no need and no benefit to Russia in doing so, and no indication that there is any danger of this.  ALL we seem to have is endless nonsense along these lines in the Western media echo-chamber.

What would be amusing would be if Putin would warn that 'it would be a mistake for Biden to consort with Martians.'  Repeat it over and over again and let it bounce around in the media and social media echo chamber ad-nausium.  Whenever possible even official figures would, when confronted with ridiculous assertions about Russia's first use of nukes from the West, countered with this or some other absurdity on the sole basis that 'it is all over the media' and point out that actual evidence or logic is unnecessary because it's 'in the news.'

lol, you are so gullible

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, has migrated from the Wall Street Journal editorial page to the world of 9/11 conspiracy theory and Putin worship.


paleoconservative crank and Reagan administration Treasury Department official Paul Craig Roberts cast doubt on the notion that the Paris attack truly stemmed from Muslim anger over Charlie Hebdo's cartoons lampooning Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. Roberts, a notorious 9/11 truther, speculated that the U.S. government executed the attack to punish France for its independent foreign policy, citing its vote at the United Nations to recognize Palestine as a state and French President Francois Hollande's recent call to ease sanctions on Russia.

Here's the best short breakdown of the reasons behind this war, that I have seen. Read this whole thing, and consider how all the parts fit together.


Armageddon Is Closer Than You Think

That does not seem what the US ambassador declared on the matter. They did declare that the answer would not be nuclear, but would be devastating. He was not talking about sanctions.

In any case, tactical nukes would not be a good idea. Firstly, most countries in the world would have at least some shift against RF, I thinking China, India. The "N" word is a hated one. Second, the land would be basically be left radioactive and, depending on the winds, it could spread to other countries. One thing is to send Chernobyl radiation to Europe, a different think on-purpose made toxic clouds.

But even if all that is overseen, the effectiveness of tactical nukes is not that great.

Noone, and I mean NOONE would use anything but strongly worded letters, more sanctions and more weapons sent to Ukraine as response
for tactical nukes. There are other considerations preventing Russia from using it

I heard some commentator say the Russians could be drawing not only Ukraine but allied forces into a trap and that there could be some type of nuclear incident by either side to provoke allied troops to cross the border into Ukraine but then they would most likely be met with a full nuclear response within the borders of Ukraine which would not legally trigger article 5 or something to this effect.Does anyone think this is a possibility or would the Russians foolishly use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.After all Ukraine is also bordering their country and the fallout would affect them too not to mention the possibility of a full scale invasion of Russia as a response.This then would start a global nuclear war.This is getting very dangerous and only a fool would imagine it won't affect them because they are on the other side of the planet.If a nuclear war starts we will all be dead or dying within 24 hours and that includes most of us on this thread

Wow! Almost can't believe that Dems are turning around to look for a peaceful outcome to the war.


30 House Dems Urge Dramatic Shift In Biden's Ukraine Policy: 'Get Serious About Diplomacy Or Risk Nuclear Miscalculation'

They were not willing to use it because they wanted to take a country just by walking in. Does that solve to you the why? Now they are ok with destroying anything they cannot take, and even for that it seems they somehow are not achieving exceptional results.

Shock and awe was to a scale 20 times bigger than anything the RF could field even before the start of the war, when they still had some of the better weapons platforms operative and in, to a point, in enough quantity. US employed proper cruise missiles (504) and around 1200  proper warplane sorties. It was delivered in a very short period of time and against a country that did not have proper air defences to compete with US.

But even after such a concentrated attack, the war ended up in cleaning Fallujah and Saadr City house by house, street by street and never being able to pacify Irak. Is that how good looks like to you?


I guess you cannot recruit a tank by force, like the slave orcs being sent to the front under threat.

In your haste to make shit up you may have overdone it a little bit. Ukraine claims to have destroyed or captured ~2500 (Oryx confirmed ~1400).

Russia has been taking tanks from Lukashenko and also bringing rusty "unpickled" T62s to the war zone - I doubt they'd do that if they didn't have severe shortages.

Its not useless, as UK/US "Shock and awe" proved in Iraq...its just that Russia was for some reason reluctant to use it at start


So now that Ukraine destroyed more than 4000 out of those 3000, there are no tanks on Russian side of battlefield?

Russian military power is a mirage. Their last major victory was against nazi Germany (thus the bizarre fixation on nazis even to this day) 80 years ago but even that comes with some caveats, such as lend-lease, second front, and the amount of cannon fodder Stalin used up.

Since then they failed in Afghanistan, barely defeated Chechnia (a nation of ~1.5 million) by bombing it into rubble, and incited some smaller conflicts (Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine pre 2022). They haven't been able to create any substantially new weapons and can barely maintain old soviet equipment. Corruption in all levels of Russian government, including military, is legendary.

Here is an interesting analysis on how their claims differ from reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHhgVrKJJoA
tl;dr: claimed to have 10+ thousand tanks, may have actually had 3000 potentially usable ones before the start of the war.

IIRC, the Ukroids have claimed to be winning stunningly since the very first day and provided (video game footage) evidence to 'prove' it.  Yet 20% of what they were claiming was 'their' country is gone-gone.  So, nothing new about their claims of success.

In order to win the upcoming referendum in Kharkiv the Ukroid secret police ZioNazis would have to blindfold and execute probably 80% of the population (assuming those who were imported from the Western part of the country were excluded from voting.)  Good luck with that.

As for 'Kherson', looks to me as though the Ruskies picked the field of battle and time of year of their choice (Northern Kherson West of the river) and, judging from the Ukroid losses, it was a good choice.  Russia (and the U.S.) seems to be playing these retarded Ukroids like a fiddle.  How on earth anyone could still be willingly offering up their lives in a sacrifice for Zelenski and the rest of the State Dept Jews Talmudo-Kabbalah-Satanists is beyond me, but there it is.  There just has to be some sort of weird mind control going on over there, and if they were running that many biological weapons labs it seems quite possible that other 'developments' were underway as well.

  https://www.bitchute.com/video/pZ9we6XVdmCi/

As for evacuating civilians from Kherson city, yes that is happening.  It's the responsible thing to do, and of course the Ukroids took the opportunity to try to kill as many of the civies as possible with long range Western supplied weapons.  Who would expect anything else after what's been witnessed to date?  And who would doubt that they'd do a dirty-bomb nuke false flag if there is any substance to that rumour?  Probably between zero and zero thinking observers.

Not everyone is able to analyze events at the same cognitive level. You look very smart my friend
This is an attempt on my part to read the events as they reach me through local media. I personally do not support the Russian war in Ukraine and consider it a barbaric aggression.

It is clear to me from your opinion that Russia is playing the humanitarian crisis card in what appears to be the most extreme solutions it has, but this is also surprising given the size of the military arsenal it possesses compared to Ukraine. Even on a strategic level, the Russian army has experience in fighting wars, whether on its territory or abroad. Is it really possible that it fails to invade a country that does not have the same experience or tools?

Probably this bald man is already storming Soledar as part of a penal company.
Nice try. The good old Buk-1M has a radius of destruction of a low-flying target up to 20 km and a probability of hitting 0.6, Ukraine simply does not have so many Buks to reliably close all possible directions of attack by drones. In principle, even the good old Shilka has a non-zero chance of success in order to shoot down a kamikaze drone. But even super-modern air defense systems cannot provide 100% reliability of defeat in the event of a night attack by a group of kamikaze drones.

Attempts to shoot down Geran-2 from an aircraft have already led to the loss of at least one MiG-29 of the Ukrainian Air Force. The Stinger MANPADS guidance system does not see Geran-2 due to the cold air-cooled engine. Any small-sized low-flying target is a deliberately difficult target for air defense. Don't talk to me about the 80% downed drones when there are rolling blackouts all over Ukraine.