Ukraine vs Russia III

"Russian pilots need to take risks to strike deeper. For the bomb to fly deeper, you need to fly closer, because the bomb is gliding, it does not have its own engine, it flies, reducing its speed. That's why they need to take risks, and by taking risks they get into stories like… pic.twitter.com/MrAe4pxXuo

— NOELREPORTS 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 (@NOELreports) February 29, 2024

 

From what I understand, when Russia was threatening to nuke everyone constantly last year, the US told them that if they use a nuke the US would sink their entire Black Sea Fleet, destroy all of the ports they had in the Black Sea, destroy every ammunition depot and air defense they had in theater, and destroy the Crimean bridge.

 

Ukraine is claiming 2 more SU34s shotdown. That's 13 in 11 days and 3 just today.

🧐The Ukrainian Air Force reports the downing of 2 more Su-34 fighter jets in the Avdiivka and Mariupol directions this morning.

If all confirmed, that would make 13 in 11 days. pic.twitter.com/1nPqx5B7V6

— NOELREPORTS 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 (@NOELreports) February 29, 2024

 

Of course he has no power, but he's been around for decades and his analytical capacities are as good as ever. So are his contacts. He has a very good idea of what is is being discussed in closed-door meetings.

 

Does he ? I actually think Macron listens to no one, and certainly not former diplomats.

Besides, assuming he has echoes of what's being said in closed-door meetings, I highly doubt he would deliver such sensitive informations to the public.

 

That's not an equal response in my mind.

 

which direction do you think is uneven?

If you think the US’s response was excessive, that was the point. Biden wanted a deterrent to prevent Russia from using nukes and a proportional response was not enough.

 

Is there a military use for this that Ukraine can profit from?

 

Sorry, I should have clarified. I don't think an appropriate response to a nuke is to destroy a fleet and ports and caches.

 

What do you think is an appropriate response? The attacks described would have crippled Russia's ability to stay on the front foot in Ukraine. Just destroying the ammunition dumps in Rostov-on-don would have crippled Russia's ability to conduct the war.

 

I will say that sinking the Black Sea Fleet and destroying the ports has a lot less meaning now that Ukraine has sank a significant chunk of the ships and forced it out of Sevastopol.

 

Putin is a 1st century despotic criminal. He goes by the Soviet motto, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine." The only thing he understands is force, and it is his belief that Ukrainians have no sovereignty and are his vassals. There is nothing you can do with someone like that except end their existence. His fate is for the world to decide, not me.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/stephen-kotkin-putin-russia-ukraine-stalin

 

Another Russian fail!

Assassination Attempt On Tucker Carlson Was Thwarted In Moscow, Russia Claims
Story by Joseph Ellis
• 4h

 

Uhm, that's not a Soviet motto, it's a white man's motto, implemented for about the last 4 centuries.

 

Bullshit, It is a Human motto as well. It is not like the raiding and pillaging wasn't popular for millenia on every part of the world.

 

Damn…!
Guess the window got stuck.

 

Woman at Navalny’s funeral compares Putin and Navalny:

“One sacrificed himself to save the country, the other one sacrificed the country to save himself” pic.twitter.com/59rWKafNVa

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 1, 2024

Only thing I don't understand is how she can walk around with b̶a̶l̶l̶s̶ ovaries that big.

 

If Russia starts using nukes in Ukraine, I think the only credible response is in kind. Destroy the facility(ies) they came from. Bomb other strategic locations to prevent them from using field nukes again.

Using nukes is a whole other level of escalation beyond just the war in Ukraine. Stopping their ability to carry out the war in Ukraine doesn't matter when they are deploying nukes. You have to stop the nukes.

I understand that's a dangerous thing, but so is using nukes in the field (or god help us on cities). That's a YOLO from Putin and you can't halfway your response at that point.

 

So, you think an appropriate response to Russia using nukes in Ukraine, would be for the US to nuke targets in Russia and start a global nuclear war?

 

Well, let's just say the thought that the US might do that is sure to make the Kremlin think long and hard about their FAFO approach to things. Ambiguity is deterrence 101.

"Fear of the Lord [or meeting him in this case] being the beginning of wisdom" and all that.

But yes, the assessed purely conventional response - immediate, total and devastating conventional attacks on all Russian forces in internationally-recognized recognized Ukrainian territory - from the US would eliminate Russia's offensive capability in Ukraine, leading to total Ukrainian victory in short order.

 

More pablum from the rube.

 

The Americas:
By the 1530s, other Western European powers realized they too could benefit from voyages to the Americas, leading to British and French colonializations in the northeast tip of the Americas, including in the present-day United States. Within a century, the Swedish established New Sweden; the Dutch established New Netherland; and Denmark–Norway along with the Swedish and Dutch established colonization of parts of the Caribbean. By the 1700s, Denmark–Norway revived its former colonies in Greenland, and Russia began to explore and claim the Pacific Coast from Alaska to California.

South East Asia:
The first phase of European colonisation of Southeast Asia took place throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. Where new European powers competing to gain monopoly over the spice trade, as this trade was very valuable to the Europeans due to high demand for various spices such as pepper, cinnamon, nutmeg, and cloves. This demand led to the arrival of Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, and later French and British marine spice traders.

Africa:
The Scramble for Africa[a] was the invasion, colonization, and partition of most of Africa among seven Western European powers during the era of "New Imperialism" (1833–1914). In 1870, 10% of the continent was formally under European control. By 1914, this figure had risen to almost 90%, with only Liberia and Ethiopia retaining their full sovereignty.

Established empires—notably Britain, France, Spain and Portugal—had already claimed coastal areas but had not penetrated deeply inland. Europeans controlled one tenth of Africa, primarily along the Mediterranean and in the far south. A significant early proponent of colonising inland was King Leopold of Belgium, who oppressed the Congo Basin as his own private domain until 1908. The 1885 Berlin Conference, initiated by Otto von Bismarck to establish international guidelines and avoiding violent disputes among European Powers, formalized the "New Imperialism".[6] This allowed the imperialists to move inland, with relatively few disputes among themselves. The only serious threat of inter-Imperial violence came in the Fashoda Incident of 1898 between Britain and France; It was settled without significant military violence between the colonising countries. Between 1870 and 1914 Europe acquired almost 23,000,000 sq. km —one-fifth of the land area of the globe—to its overseas colonial possessions.

So, dude. Which non - white global colonizing powers were replaced in the last 4 centuries?

 

Even more pablum from the rube.

 

So you have nothing.