Millions of us might be **** if we ignore the Russian-Ukraine war

[OFSO]

Pretexts are one of the oldest weapons of war. "You are as bad as us". " You did it to us so we are only retaliating". And if course there isn't a convenient Archduke to assassinate here.

[prospector]

The corruption in Ukraine, and the involvement of Joe Biden, his son, and others like Viktoria Nuland have a lot to answer for in the cause of the conflict in Ukraine, this clip of Joe boasting about getting the chief prosecutor fired for investigating Burisma Gas and Oil company that his son Hunter was getting paid many thousands, despite little or no business experience, is a good indication of Biden tactics.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Sunday becomes Monday, and a new week begins....

Week 1 War will never end, sue for peace
Week 2 It'll all go nuclear<- You Are Here
Week 3 All leaders except putin are corrupt idiots <- You Are Here

Told ya!

[prospector]

No, not all, but certainly Biden. He fits your description of a corrupt idiot. Who is the boss of NATO? Is Ukraine a member of NATO? NO!! why are they there?? Because Biden told them to be. Simple as that.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

We've done this before.
Biden IS a corrupt idiot.
Trudeau is a corrupt idiot.
etc
But putin is the most corrupt, most idiotic, and is Evil to boot.

NATO is not in Ukraine. It's a defensive alliance. NATO members can do what they like to support others as individual nations; always have, always will. "Simple as that"
If anything, Biden is the one holding up the support that the others want to give. But the US as world financial reserve nation has had arm-twisting powers since Suez, and especially now that many western economies are approaching basket-case status.

Doesn't the fact that I can predict what your BS propaganda will be this week will be bother you?

[prospector]

Why should that bother me, what you can predict is of little concern, you seem to treat this disaster, many thousands of young lives lost, as a ball game. We won this lot, they lost that lot. And it would appear you would want the Russians to be put in a position where the only way out is using nuclear. When we read such reports of war crimes where a number of civilians have been killed or injured, what will be the number if nuclear is used? Hiroshima or Nagasaki would only be minor occurrences compared to the latest weaponry available, to many countries.

""If anything, Biden is the one holding up the support that the others want to give""

Starting, or perhaps more accurately, finishing with the cluster shells that most countries have banned.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The point about the prediction is that it's a transparent BS PR routine by the Russians that you keep parrotting.

The title of the thread is aimed at the consequences of the war. However, it's impossible to figure out the future without calculating, and therefore detailing, exactly what's happening.

Cluster munitions are legal, and Russia has and still is using them, and you know that.

"And it would appear you would want the Russians to be put in a position where the only way out is using nuclear. "

Standard bully approach - you forced me to hit you.
And, since you mention it so often, exactly what is Russia going to nuke that will change the course of the war? Target list in megatons, please, together with intended effects.

To be explicit, I want Russia to lose. Since putin has claimed part of Ukraine as Russia, this inevitably means losing part of Russia, in his eyes. His own definitions therefore allow the use of Russian nuclear weapons, but this is a travesty. Almost no nation, nor the UN, have accepted the Russian referenda as valid, nor would anyone with the slightest degree of critical thought.

Russia is going to get its butt kicked because putin over-reached and tried to capture the entire country, and because the Russian armed forces are only paper-capable. The reality is that their kit is too damaged or deficient, their plans and leadership laughably ineffective, and their troops too incapable, due to corruption and a priviliged leadership. Where's the Moskva?

As ever, you won't answer the questions or respond with direct facts or logical reasoning. Neither does putin.

[Pinky the pilot]

I wonder just if Putin would be crazy enough to use a tactical Nuke.

And if he actually did, then what??

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Same question as I asked Prospector, and that I asked a year ago; a tactical nuke on what, exactly?

[prospector]

Your argument that this war was not provoked, but is merely a Russian expansionist move, is not shared by many people in the world. And if Putin is as an evil person as you insist then someone would have taken him out by now. How many other politicians have been in power for 20 some years? He has been elected for the post of President or Prime minister every time he has stood. The Communist Party has always been beaten into second place.

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war ... sia-177999

""Many warnings about Russia’s reaction
Russian elite and broad public opinion have both long been opposed to such expansion, the placement of American rockets in Poland and Romania and the arming of Ukraine with Western weaponry.

When President Bill Clinton’s administration moved to bring Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO, Burns wrote that the decision was “premature at best, and needlessly provocative at worst.”

He continued, “As Russians stewed in their grievance and sense of disadvantage, a gathering storm of ‘stab in the back’ theories slowly swirled, leaving a mark on Russia’s relations with the West that would linger for decades.”

In June 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to Clinton, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.”

In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

[Pontius Navigator]

How many other politicians have been in power for 20 some years? He has been elected for the post of President or Prime minister every time he has stood.

Mugabe, Hussein, Gaddafi, Nasser, Ayatollah, Lee Kun Yew, Kim Youn, Mao, Tito, Franko

[Pontius Navigator]

Same question as I asked Prospector, and that I asked a year ago; a tactical nuke on what, exactly?

Tactical use must have a tactical value else it would be a monumental strategic error.

Decapitation the UKr leadership would be strategic. One bang, gane, set, and match. Or would it? Could they even guarantee decapitation?

In another sense, a small but devastating tac nuke might start a massive UKr assault. Better a charge and engage the enemy more closely than cower underground and hope for the best.

Remember the end of Dr Strangeglove?

[prospector]

I say again, and I would have no doubt that Ambassador Burns would have a far greater grasp on the facts of the situation than anyone in this forum. This conflict could have been so easily avoided.

In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

As ever, you won't answer the questions or respond with direct facts or logical reasoning. Neither does putin.

Ignoring all questions you don't like, using opinions and random assertions of absolute confidence instead of logical reasoning...reality must be a daily threat to your little world.

[John Hill]

The world would be a much safer place today if NATO had been disbanded when its original raison d'etre ceased to exist.

It does not cease to exist while there is still money to be made.

[prospector]

""reality must be a daily threat to your little world.""
Not such a little world. 15,000 hrs in logbook, rated 1,2,3,4 engine aircraft. some 2,000hrs Single Pilot IFR.
Some 3,000 miles single handed ocean racing, 25,000 total ocean miles in my 10 mtr boat, mostly solo.
Reality is what one faced all the time with those pursuits.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

During which you analysed reality, answered questions, and made logical deductions.
None of which you are doing about Ukraine.

So, let's try again.
Exactly what tactical nuke targets would Russia hit?
Why are you quoting RT, or CNN, when they have a list of errors and blatant propaganda as long as your arm?
Why don't you bother finding out whether the videos you post are by convinced child sex offenders, racists, etc, before you post them?
Why do you keep posting rubbish about nations banning cluster weapons when you know perfectly well, or ought to, that Russia has and still is using them?

[prospector]

1, I have heard it suggested perhaps the Pentagon or maybe London, would be a good strategic targets, Tactical targets keep changing. This war would have been over long ago, and many lives would have been saved if these countries did not keep supplying more and more sophisticated weaponry, troop training etc, and yet claim they are not part of the conflict.
2.Never quoted CNN. Many articles are published by RT, but they are written by many people from many walks of life
3 Never met any, or posted video's from .""convinced child sex offenders or racists""
4. The fact Russia has and is still using them does not mean that many nations have not banned them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventio ... _Munitions

"" The Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) is an international treaty that prohibits all use, transfer, production, and stockpiling of cluster munitions, a type of explosive weapon which scatters submunitions ("bomblets") over an area. Additionally, the convention establishes a framework to support victim assistance, clearance of contaminated sites, risk reduction education, and stockpile destruction. The convention was adopted on 30 May 2008 in Dublin,[6] and was opened for signature on 3 December 2008 in Oslo. It entered into force on 1 August 2010, six months after it was ratified by 30 states.[2] As of April 2023, a total of 123 states are committed to the goal of the convention, with 111 states that have ratified it, and 12 states that have signed the convention but not yet ratified it.[3]a""

[Pinky the pilot]

This war would have been over long ago, and many lives would have been saved if these countries did not keep supplying more and more sophisticated weaponry, troop training etc, and yet claim they are not part of the conflict.

Probably quite right, but would not then the result be that Ukraine would now be occupied by Russia?

[tango15]

This war would have been over long ago, and many lives would have been saved if these countries did not keep supplying more and more sophisticated weaponry, troop training etc, and yet claim they are not part of the conflict.

Probably quite right, but would not then the result be that Ukraine would now be occupied by Russia?

...and if that had happened, how many other deluded dictators, having seen the lack of reaction from the West, would have taken the opportunity to grab a little more land for themselves, to say nothing of the further land grabs that Putin himself would have undertaken, following his 'success' in Ukraine?

A little perspective here. During the Falklands unpleasantness, yours truly spent most of it in South America. Britain's response was watched very closely by, amongst others, Colombia where I happened to be at the time, because they own a group of islands in the Caribbean called the San Andres Islands. The islands lie off the coast of Nicaragua, which has long claimed rights over them, and soon after the Falklands activity, began flying low over the islands with their fighters. There were - and still are - a number of territorial disputes in Latin America, of which we never hear, but most of those came to the fore again during that time. None of this was reported outside of Latin America, not even on the CNN Spanish language channels, but was widely reported in the press at that time. Once the British had overcome the Argentinian invaders, little more was heard of these activities, but this is surely a classic example of the law of unintended consequences.