Sunrise was 9 hours ago?
WTAF is Biden doing?!? (Ukraine)
19,285 Views |
333 Replies |
Last: 1 min ago by Stat Monitor Repairman
"At least it's something." Yay.
WAR: The use of low yield tactical nukes, especially airburst, on the battlefield would give Russian troops a huge advantage and facilitate rapid troop advancement on all fronts. It would also demoralize Ukrainian troops. The targeted areas would be safe for troops within 12-24… pic.twitter.com/EN2TsR6Ic2
— @amuse (@amuse) November 19, 2024
" He's trying, sure, but it's not going to work. ATACMS haven't been effective, at all, for well over a year, and nothing can help the pocket of Ukrainians around Kursk at this point. This won't have any impact on the conflict at all (just as the Nork troops haven't), despite all the cheerleading hopes in the war press.
When the vehicles that launch these things move around/out from cover, they are promptly wiped out, and GPS guidance systems don't work at all over Russia at this point. Now, there is some risk that Putin will be annoyed enough to really cause infrastructure harm on Kiev over it, but hopefully not (so far limited to essentially power stations/substations)."
Weird that yesterday they weren't a threat but today they're so devastating that nuclear war is imminent. You're hilarious.
When the vehicles that launch these things move around/out from cover, they are promptly wiped out, and GPS guidance systems don't work at all over Russia at this point. Now, there is some risk that Putin will be annoyed enough to really cause infrastructure harm on Kiev over it, but hopefully not (so far limited to essentially power stations/substations)."
Weird that yesterday they weren't a threat but today they're so devastating that nuclear war is imminent. You're hilarious.
Teslag said:
They need to decide which narrative they are going with. Long range ATACMS are a threat to Russia and will push them to nuclear war or it's completely ineffective and not a threat at all.
You have said this a couple of times. It's pretty clear that both things can be true.
1. Putin has announced that he intends to PERCEIVE the missiles as a threat. He sees them as an extension of the power of NATO and the United States.
That is obviously true.
2. At the same time, the missiles, from what I have read, are not a true existential threat to Russia nor even to Russia's ability to defeat Ukraine in this war.
And just to say it again, I wish Putin were dead and that Ukraine would defeat Russia. I don't buy the "he was provoked" defense of his invasion. He is a bad actor. Putin's use of Korean mercenaries is very provocative itself and is an indication of how far he is willing to go to win the war.
But I have no interest in getting into a war with Russia. It is dangerous and not in our interests.
FireAg said:
The Ukes just fired one of our long range missiles into Russia…
When will the Russian nukes arrive? Do we get at least a 30 minute heads up before the detonate?
Quote:
And just to say it again, I wish Putin were dead and that Ukraine would defeat Russia. I don't buy the "he was provoked" defense of his invasion. He is a bad actor. Putin's use of Korean mercenaries is very provocative itself and is an indication of how far he is willing to go to win the war.
But I have no interest in getting into a war with Russia. It is dangerous and not in our interests.
All fair and respectable points. And it's proof one can reasonably against this war while not latching onto Russian propaganda and supporting them.
Screw this guy. He is an arrogant fool.
Ukraine President Zelensky laughs at the idea of Trump bringing Russia and Ukraine to the table to negotiate peace
— Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) November 16, 2024
He says Ukraine is independent and should be treated as such
Alright then pay for your own damn war, we are done flipping your bill
pic.twitter.com/0Fcggd97GE
Not sure why you are being snarky about this...Teslag said:FireAg said:
The Ukes just fired one of our long range missiles into Russia…
When will the Russian nukes arrive? Do we get at least a 30 minute heads up before the detonate?
I would think that all of us would like to stop sending our tax dollars away to a foreign country, known for corruption, rather than using that money to address domestic concerns...
The desire by the Biden regime to escalate things in Ukriane should be seen as way to get the US more bogged down there, stalling other agenda items for which Trump was elected to implement...
This is the same game plan used with Vietnam, only this time, our "advisors" are much more covert and being disguised as "equipment"... I guarantee you it is US assets actually pulling the trigger on these assets...
Also, I bet Germany isn't laughing today. They laughed at Trump, now they probably can't wait until he replaces Biden.
Putin is a disgusting, pathetic POS third-world tin-pot dictator of a country steamrolling faster and faster into sh**thole territory. And like all POS, he talks a big game, but he's too much of a (rhymes with runt) to actually take on anyone who can hit back just as hard, or in our case, infinitely harder.OldArmy71 said:Teslag said:
They need to decide which narrative they are going with. Long range ATACMS are a threat to Russia and will push them to nuclear war or it's completely ineffective and not a threat at all.
You have said this a couple of times. It's pretty clear that both things can be true.
1. Putin has announced that he intends to PERCEIVE the missiles as a threat. He sees them as an extension of the power of NATO and the United States.
That is obviously true.
2. At the same time, the missiles, from what I have read, are not a true existential threat to Russia nor even to Russia's ability to defeat Ukraine in this war.
And just to say it again, I wish Putin were dead and that Ukraine would defeat Russia. I don't buy the "he was provoked" defense of his invasion. He is a bad actor. Putin's use of Korean mercenaries is very provocative itself and is an indication of how far he is willing to go to win the war.
But I have no interest in getting into a war with Russia. It is dangerous and not in our interests.
As for the "But he'll use nukes" line. No, he won't. His ego, as fragile as it is, knows that he can't be remembered in Russian history if there's no Russia.
He'd have done it by now, but like the good little b*tch that he is, he knows who his daddy is, and that always has been, and always will be the U.S.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
For those who don't get on their knees to worship Putin like the good little simps they are for him, "proud" may be a stretch, but it is definitely in the right direction.AggiePetro07 said:FireAg said:
The Ukes just fired one of our long range missiles into Russia…
How did it do? Should we be proud?
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
FireAg said:Not sure why you are being snarky about this...Teslag said:FireAg said:
The Ukes just fired one of our long range missiles into Russia…
When will the Russian nukes arrive? Do we get at least a 30 minute heads up before the detonate?
I would think that all of us would like to stop sending our tax dollars away to a foreign country, known for corruption, rather than using that money to address domestic concerns...
The desire by the Biden regime to escalate things in Ukriane should be seen as way to get the US more bogged down there, stalling other agenda items for which Trump was elected to implement...
This is the same game plan used with Vietnam, only this time, our "advisors" are much more covert and being disguised as "equipment"... I guarantee you it is US assets actually pulling the trigger on these assets...
Or it's actually a good idea and should have been done a year ago. Trump will need to negotiate a peace deal for BOTH sides. And to do that he needs to leverage pressure on not just Zelensky, but also Putin. How do you propose he do that? Trump himself said if Putin did not approach the negotiations in good faith he would give Ukraine everything they need to win.
John Bolton coming on CNN saying it's not enough escalation and that all this stupid public debate is getting in the way. He goes on to say Putin is out bluffing us to get everything he wants for free.
the ultimate irony is we save the Republic electing MAGA after years of stressful struggle-
only to have Biden get us into a nuclear war with Russia before Trump takes over.
only to have Biden get us into a nuclear war with Russia before Trump takes over.
When do the Russian nukes arrive on our soil? You can give us the month rather than the exact date. December? January?
The US & Europe have already given Ukraine hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons. Nevertheless, Ukraine is “bleeding out” (WaPo) and losing more territory daily. Trump did not cause this; Biden’s folly did. If Biden had supported the Istanbul accords, the war would have… https://t.co/IpbGpEi7OM
— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) November 19, 2024
Here is a more extensive analysis of the summary above. Something has to be done immediately and cooler heads must prevail. https://t.co/KpXTHV2KAn
— General Mike Flynn (@GenFlynn) November 19, 2024
Quote:
If Biden had supported the Istanbul accords, the war would have ended in its first month with no territorial loss.
Complete and total lie. If they supported that surrender (it wasn't a peace deal) Kharkiv and Kherson would still be in Russian hands, as would millions of Ukrainians. The highly successful Ukrainian counteroffinsive of 2022 never happens. And Russia isnt' ever getting those lands back now thankfully.
For WW3 to start, Russia would have to attack a NATO country.
Which of you believes that Russia will directly attack a NATO country over a relatively minor tactical shift on the battlefield in Ukraine?
Keep in mind that Ukraine has been using US missiles against Russian territory for months. The recent shift only increases the range. That's it.
As all his previous nuclear threats have been for the past 2+ years, this threat is similarly empty as the only logic that supports it is the logic of the threat itself, not the follow-through. The threats remain continued attempts at encouraging self-deterrence on the part of their enemies in order to maintain an easier battlefield for themselves.
Which of you believes that Russia will directly attack a NATO country over a relatively minor tactical shift on the battlefield in Ukraine?
Keep in mind that Ukraine has been using US missiles against Russian territory for months. The recent shift only increases the range. That's it.
As all his previous nuclear threats have been for the past 2+ years, this threat is similarly empty as the only logic that supports it is the logic of the threat itself, not the follow-through. The threats remain continued attempts at encouraging self-deterrence on the part of their enemies in order to maintain an easier battlefield for themselves.
Maybe, maybe not. A nuclear response may be warranted to end the provocation. I've read that it would facilitate a rapid collapse of what is left of UFA defenses.
Some of us trust General Flynn, Tulsi and David Sacks more than certain others. Let alone Joe Biden.
Some of us trust General Flynn, Tulsi and David Sacks more than certain others. Let alone Joe Biden.
Tulsi and Flynn have their opinions. But given that they both advocated for Ukraine to be left for dead at the beginning of this, I venture to say that their recommendations are centered primarily on Russian appeasement. And yes, you've made clear that this is also your favored approach.
Quote:
A nuclear response may be warranted to end the provocation
Bookmark this. We are told that "no one supports Russia" and now someone is openly saying that Russia "may be justified" in using nuclear weapons to subdue a sovereign independent nation and its people. And that same person has repeatedly accused others of being "war cheerleaders" and glorifying death. But detonating a nuclear device and subsequently killing thousands upon thousands of civilians directly or indirectly from fallout isn't.
He's openly cheering for an alliance of Russia, Iran, and North Korea. I don't think he cares how bad he looks cheering for nuclear war.
That won't happen, and it's time to stop pretending it will. This all out war is nearly 3 years old--longer if you count the Definitely Not Russia "separatists". They've threatened nuclear war in retaliation at almost every "escalation" for almost 3 years straight.nortex97 said:
A nuclear response may be warranted to end the provocation.
It hasn't happened from all of the other "red lines" crossed, and it won't happen as a result of any future "red lines" crossed. It sure as hell won't happen with Trump in office. If Putin knew he would be vaporized before, he damn sure knows it with Trump in office.
GAC06 said:
He's openly cheering for an alliance of Russia, Iran, and North Korea. I don't think he cares how bad he looks cheering for nuclear war.
Where did I say any of that? Please don't take his twisted analysis as my intent ever. The only good would be that the war would end finally in a route, and Russia wouldn't feel threatened to attack us or a nato country. Oh and Trump wouldn't have to deal with it.
No, a Russian victory in Ukraine in no way is bad for Americans, fiscally or otherwise. Preserving some portion of the remaining Ukrainian young adult population would be great too. We still celebrate that Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the need to invade Japan quickly. The Russians may feel the same way.
I guess I've missed the nuclear bombing celebrations
Rossticus said:
For WW3 to start, Russia would have to attack a NATO country.
Which of you believes that Russia will directly attack a NATO country over a relatively minor tactical shift on the battlefield in Ukraine?
Keep in mind that Ukraine has been using US missiles against Russian territory for months. The recent shift only increases the range. That's it.
As all his previous nuclear threats have been for the past 2+ years, this threat is similarly empty as the only logic that supports it is the logic of the threat itself, not the follow-through. The threats remain continued attempts at encouraging self-deterrence on the part of their enemies in order to maintain an easier battlefield for themselves.
The expected Russia response is not an attack on a NATO country, but a nuke in Ukraine.
Then what.....
Red Fishing Ag93 said:Rossticus said:
For WW3 to start, Russia would have to attack a NATO country.
Which of you believes that Russia will directly attack a NATO country over a relatively minor tactical shift on the battlefield in Ukraine?
Keep in mind that Ukraine has been using US missiles against Russian territory for months. The recent shift only increases the range. That's it.
As all his previous nuclear threats have been for the past 2+ years, this threat is similarly empty as the only logic that supports it is the logic of the threat itself, not the follow-through. The threats remain continued attempts at encouraging self-deterrence on the part of their enemies in order to maintain an easier battlefield for themselves.
The expected Russia response is not an attack on a NATO country, but a nuke in Ukraine.
Then what.....
Russia isn't launching a strategic nuke on Ukraine. Launching even multiple tac nukes on Ukraine wouldn't necessarily have a significant material impact given the current nature of the battlefield. Russia has traditional, nonnuclear ordnance that is more destructive than a tac nuke if they were simply looking for "big badda boom". And they've declined to employ these in theater as of yet.
Tac nuke may or may not have a significant psychological effect but offensive employment of a nuclear weapon in an offensive war of aggression also risks broad negative repercussions as well, as most of the world (Europe in particular) doesn't want to risk the future chaos that could stem from normalization of like actions.
Even if it were to result in a "victory" that nets them 20%-30% of Ukraine, the fallout (forgive the pun) of victory could ultimately be worse than having taken a loss.
The world treats Russia like the Japanese boardroom treated the Kohai in Rising Sun. He will have ZERO support and his floundering economy of today will look like a skeleton in nothing flat with zero trade going in or out. It will spell Putin's end for sure.Red Fishing Ag93 said:Rossticus said:
For WW3 to start, Russia would have to attack a NATO country.
Which of you believes that Russia will directly attack a NATO country over a relatively minor tactical shift on the battlefield in Ukraine?
Keep in mind that Ukraine has been using US missiles against Russian territory for months. The recent shift only increases the range. That's it.
As all his previous nuclear threats have been for the past 2+ years, this threat is similarly empty as the only logic that supports it is the logic of the threat itself, not the follow-through. The threats remain continued attempts at encouraging self-deterrence on the part of their enemies in order to maintain an easier battlefield for themselves.
The expected Russia response is not an attack on a NATO country, but a nuke in Ukraine.
Then what.....
So this is Biden's Plan A? Great global chaos before Trump can take office?
Trump out there desperately trying to de-escilate and Biden green lighting long rang missiles.
We the kid floating in the canoe at the end of Friday the 13th.
No telling what we likely to see.
What would you recommend to force Putin to the negotiating table in good faith?
B-1 83 said:The world treats Russia like the Japanese boardroom treated the Kohai in Rising Sun. He will have ZERO support and his floundering economy of today will look like a skeleton in nothing flat with zero trade going in or out. It will spell Putin's end for sure.Red Fishing Ag93 said:Rossticus said:
For WW3 to start, Russia would have to attack a NATO country.
Which of you believes that Russia will directly attack a NATO country over a relatively minor tactical shift on the battlefield in Ukraine?
Keep in mind that Ukraine has been using US missiles against Russian territory for months. The recent shift only increases the range. That's it.
As all his previous nuclear threats have been for the past 2+ years, this threat is similarly empty as the only logic that supports it is the logic of the threat itself, not the follow-through. The threats remain continued attempts at encouraging self-deterrence on the part of their enemies in order to maintain an easier battlefield for themselves.
The expected Russia response is not an attack on a NATO country, but a nuke in Ukraine.
Then what.....
So, WWIII.
I'd have thought the pro war folks would be excited at this.
nortex97 said:
I'd have thought the pro war folks would be excited at this.
Says the pro nuclear war guy....
Teslag said:
What would you recommend to force Putin to the negotiating table in good faith?
A phone call with someone capable of negotiating.
Teslag said:nortex97 said:
I'd have thought the pro war folks would be excited at this.
Says the pro nuclear war guy....
Once again, if you could stop lying about my positions I'd appreciate it.