Biden/Harris parting gift to the world: A World War

[User]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Why do you think they didn't just blow Kiev off the map?

Well... because this is an expensive and experimental weapon, not ideally designed to be employed as a conventional warfare missile, rather, as a nuclear warhead delivery system. Russia doesn't have very many of them either. 

 

[WestCanMan]

19 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

It's actually a small percentage of Americans that support Putin over Ukraine. A majority support Ukraine and have a favourable view of NATO, and fully 91% have an unfavourable view of Putin.

"How people view Putin" and whether or not this is a legitimate war are two different topics entirely. Your bias against Putin is influencing your understanding of the situation. 

Regardless of whether someone is a rapist but they never got caught, or they're a really kind music teacher, and then someone randomly assaults them at a bus stop, they're both still getting attacked and they have a right to defend themselves.

Putin isn't a swell guy, but that doesn't mean that Russia has to sit back and let shit happen without doing anything about it. 

I understand that you're unaware of the threat that NATO poses to Russia, sucks to be you. Maybe just stay quiet and make people guess how stupid you are. 

[Radiorum]

23 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

doesn't mean that Russia has to sit back and let shit happen

There are currently 50 nations contributing to Ukraine’s defense. Why is that?

(US aid actually ranks 10^th as a percentage of GDP.)

The US does $1 trillion dollars in trade with Europe. So, besides the destabilizing effects on world security Putin’s war threatens, there are also huge economic risks.

You may trust Putin, but many (especially the informed) don’t.

There is bipartisan support in Congress for Ukraine:

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “This is not just some altruistic project. This passes every cold, hard, realistic calculation with flying colors. It’s the right move for American taxpayers, for American servicemembers, for our allies and partners… Our investment in Ukraine is restoring and rebuilding deterrence for pennies on the dollar.”

Senate State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Ranking Member Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “If Putin dismembers Ukraine, he will not stop. China is more likely to go into Taiwan. The world will unravel and no domestic problem gets better here at home allowing Putin to destroy Ukraine – quite the opposite… We’re spending money, but it’s being spent on a good cause, the cause of freedom. So I’m all in, whatever they need as long as they need it.”

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX): “I have supported U.S. assistance because a victory by Putin in Ukraine would further embolden Americans adversaries from Chairman Xi in Beijing, to the Ayatollah and Tehran to Kim Jong-un in North Korea… Last month, I led a congressional delegation to Ukraine and Poland to conduct in-person oversight of U.S. aid to Ukraine. I saw firsthand the process is working.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “Now is not the time… to take our foot off the gas when it comes to helping Ukraine. The single worst thing we can do right now is give Putin any signal that we are wavering in our commitment to defend democracy in Ukraine and around the globe.”

Senate State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Chris Coons (D-DE): “More than 40 countries around the world are helping Ukraine… We have to continue to stand by Ukraine. Their fight is our fight. They are on the front lines of freedom, for the world, for this century, and I am determined that we will continue this fight to Ukrainian victory.”

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY): “It’s not just between two countries. It’s a battle between freedom and tyranny, it’s a battle between democracy and autocracy, it’s a battle between truth and propaganda… If Ukraine prevails, the free world prevails, and that’s good for all of us.”

House Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Gregory Meeks (D-NY): “Congress and the American people will continue to stand with the brave Ukrainians who are defending their rights and freedom. Ukrainians did not ask for this unjust war of aggression. They are only asking for our support as they defend their home and their sovereignty. And it is in our national interest to provide that support to Ukraine.”

House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner (R-OH): “Overwhelmingly, there is support for continuing aid to Ukraine, so that they can continue to fight against this aggression of Russia.”

 

 

25 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

sucks to be you

Actually, it's pretty nice. 

[WestCanMan]

24 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

There are currently 50 nations contributing to Ukraine’s defense. Why is that?

Because the Dems want a world war, apparently, and the US is incredibly powerful and influential.

Many countries supported the bogus war in Iraq too.

Quote

Actually, it's pretty nice.

Blissful is the word you were looking for. 

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, User said:

There was very little favorable about it, its like asking why someone doesn't accept a deal with a gun pointed to their heads. 

You guys act like this was some kind of in good faith negotiation, as if Russia was some kind and wonder actor... WHILE THEY WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF A FULL SCALE INVASION. 

Oh gee... why wouldn't someone think Russia is so wonderful and kind and benevolent when they already took Crimea, started a shadow war in the Donbas, and then launched a full scale invasion. Oh yeah, great peace negotiators to be taken very seriously. 

And by the same token, why should anyone trust NATO?

1 hour ago, User said:

Well... because this is an expensive and experimental weapon, not ideally designed to be employed as a conventional warfare missile, rather, as a nuclear warhead delivery system. Russia doesn't have very many of them either. 

 

How do you know how many they have?

[User]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

And by the same token, why should anyone trust NATO?

Sigh... NATO is not invading Russia. Russia is invading Ukraine. After Russia started a shadow war in the Donbas.... after Russia invaded Crimea. 

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

How do you know how many they have?

I did not claim to know how many they have.

You are the one who claimed they did not level Kiev, so you explain what you meant and how many of these you know they have that they are just sitting on that can be used to level Kiev.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

And by the same token, why should anyone trust NATO?

If you google it, you'll find an Official Declaration, made jointly from NATO and the UN, called "User and Radiorum Have Hereby Personally Guaranteed that Now, and For The Next 200 Years, NATO Will Be Good Guys". It was ratified on the weekend apparently, so I guess that settles it... Russia need not fear NATO for at least 200 years.

YAY! The war can end now. 

[Hodad]

On 11/20/2024 at 12:55 PM, WestCanMan said:

 

And in the real world, joining NATO is a dire threat to Russia's plans to invade its neighbors, plain and simple. 

 

FTFY. NATO is a purely defensive alliance. 

[User]

23 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

YAY! The war can end now. 

Of course... you two don't question Russia, but its NATO that can't be trusted. 

Up next, you pretend to not understand why it is pointed out that you support and cheer on Russia. 

[Scott75]

7 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Ya, why would Zelinsky have rejected such a favorable peace deal? None of that made any sense. Who really wanted the war to continue? Ukraine or the Americans and Brits?

I imagine Zelensky, the Brits and the Americans would have all preferred it if Putin had just let the eastern Ukrainians get rolled, quite possibly in anticipation of Ukraine and the west then begin to do the same with Crimea and finally with Russia itself, given enough time. Putin suggested that this might well have been the course of events if he hadn't acted with his military operation on February 24, 2022. I have seen only one article that really got into the days before Putin finally decided to start his military operation and they were eye opening for me. This article was written by a former Swiss Military Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud. Here's the most salient passage from his article on this:

**

In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over.

If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “  Responsibility To Protect  ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21.

That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them.

The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance.

In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately obscure the fact that the war actually started on February 16th. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as certain Russian and European intelligence services were well aware… The lawyers will judge.

**

 

I found the rest of Jacques Baud's article to be very eye opening as well, well worth reading the whole thing in my view. It can be seen here:

https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

 

 

It's things like this that lend credence that Russia really didn't want to go into Ukraine and only felt forced to after Ukraine started its attack. Here's a passage from Putin's speech that aired on February 24, 2022:

**

This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain.

As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics.

**

Source:

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/statements/67843

 

Edited November 25, 2024 by phoenyx75
Added information

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over.

I've never found any one thing that really laid it all out about the Ukrainian situation. 

We get snippets of all the various aspects of this war from several different "sources", which inevitably means that we're getting a constant mix of BS and lies and exaggerations and omissions and carefully controlled narratives from unvetted sources, or known liars like CNN.

1. Going back as far as 2009, Biden was in Ukraine talking about "Ukraine joining NATO". 
2. Then came the infamous carpet-bagging scheme with Hunter, Joe and Burisma,
3. the unilateral firing and hiring or prosecutors in Ukraine by Joe,
4. the Euromaidan Protests - orchestrated by the US gov't,
5. there was the case of US/Ukrainian research that is known to have been conducted on bioweapons in Ukraine,
6. [1] discrimination against Russian-speaking minorities (or even the majority within that region) in the Donbas, [2] separatist uprisings in the Donbas, [3] the annexation of Crimea and Russian support of separatists outside of Crimea, all in quick succession,
7. then the escalation in the shelling of civilian targets in Donbas.
8. Obviously the invasion followed all of that.

I think that the Azov Nazi Battalion was formed after the annexation of Crimea, but I don't know exactly who all its various members were committing war crimes for before they officially became a Nazi battalion. 

Honestly, I'd love to hear a thorough breakdown of all those various aspects of this war, all from the same group of people. Those parts of the story are all important, and it's tough to even place them all in proper chronological order. Some of them overlap, etc. And we read about all of those things from different people with different perspectives (biases) all the time. It's really frustrating. 

[WestCanMan]

Within the above is also known US government interference in who was even allowed to run for office in Ukraine.

Tory Nuland appears to have blocked Klitschko from running on behalf of the US gov't, and then the clown/comedian got elected.  

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, User said:

Sigh... NATO is not invading Russia. Russia is invading Ukraine. After Russia started a shadow war in the Donbas.... after Russia invaded Crimea. 

I did not claim to know how many they have.

You are the one who claimed they did not level Kiev, so you explain what you meant and how many of these you know they have that they are just sitting on that can be used to level Kiev.

Except Ukraine is not a NATO member.

I don't know how many of those they have. I'm pretty sure they have enough standard missiles to get the job done though. Ever wonder why they haven't?

[User]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Except Ukraine is not a NATO member.

You say that like it is making some kind of point. Care to expand?

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I don't know how many of those they have. I'm pretty sure they have enough standard missiles to get the job done though. Ever wonder why they haven't?

Really... what standard missiles do they have that you think they are just sitting on that could hit Kiev right now?

The question is not why they have not leveled the city anyhow. They already tried to capture the city. You can't even admit to these basic facts. 

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, User said:

You say that like it is making some kind of point. Care to expand?

Really... what standard missiles do they have that you think they are just sitting on that could hit Kiev right now?

The question is not why they have not leveled the city anyhow. They already tried to capture the city. You can't even admit to these basic facts. 

Ukraine is not a NATO nation. What part of that alludes you?

It sure a good thing you're not in the military.

[Radiorum]

I have a bit of a hard time imagining that Trump will just end the war by giving in to Putin’s demands. There would be nothing in it for Trump, and Trump doesn’t do anything that does not benefit him. Trump’s political goals are all about gaining more power for himself. Being strong. A capitulation to Russia would not accomplish that.

He may be presenting a threatening stance to Ukraine in order to strengthen his bargaining power with the besieged nation. “You want our help?” I can imagine Trump saying. “Well, what are you going to do for us?”

This would most likely involve exploiting Ukraine’s rich natural resources, or offering American companies sweet business deals.

 

[gatomontes99]

26 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

I have a bit of a hard time imagining that Trump will just end the war by giving in to Putin’s demands.

That is complete speculation. Especially since Trump has bookend the claim that he will end the war on day one with stories about how he threatened the Taliban leaders. Trump has never said, outright, what he would do. He has implied that there would be subtle threats.

[User]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Ukraine is not a NATO nation. What part of that alludes you?

It sure a good thing you're not in the military.

Again... did you have some point to make here in stating this?

 

[Scott75]

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

22 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

I have seen only one article that really got into the days before Putin finally decided to start his military operation and they were eye opening for me. This article was written by a former Swiss Military Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud. Here's the most salient passage from his article on this:

**

In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over.

I've never found any one thing that really laid it all out about the Ukrainian situation. 

We get snippets of all the various aspects of this war from several different "sources", which inevitably means that we're getting a constant mix of BS and lies and exaggerations and omissions and carefully controlled narratives from unvetted sources, or known liars like CNN.

1. Going back as far as 2009, Biden was in Ukraine talking about "Ukraine joining NATO". 
2. Then came the infamous carpet-bagging scheme with Hunter, Joe and Burisma,
3. the unilateral firing and hiring or prosecutors in Ukraine by Joe,
4. the Euromaidan Protests - orchestrated by the US gov't,
5. there was the case of US/Ukrainian research that is known to have been conducted on bioweapons in Ukraine,
6. [1] discrimination against Russian-speaking minorities (or even the majority within that region) in the Donbas, [2] separatist uprisings in the Donbas, [3] the annexation of Crimea and Russian support of separatists outside of Crimea, all in quick succession,
7. then the escalation in the shelling of civilian targets in Donbas.
8. Obviously the invasion followed all of that.

I think that the Azov Nazi Battalion was formed after the annexation of Crimea, but I don't know exactly who all its various members were committing war crimes for before they officially became a Nazi battalion. 

Honestly, I'd love to hear a thorough breakdown of all those various aspects of this war, all from the same group of people. Those parts of the story are all important, and it's tough to even place them all in proper chronological order. Some of them overlap, etc. And we read about all of those things from different people with different perspectives (biases) all the time. It's really frustrating. 

When I started to look into all of this, mainly at the start of Russia's military operation in Ukraine, I too was rather confused as to what was going on. The more I read, however, the more I became convinced that people like Jacques Baud had it right, and that the western mainstream media was mainly in the business of concealing some very sordid facts about the west's culpability in all of this. Perhaps the most sordid of all was the United States' involvement in Euromaidan. The call between then Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was particularly illuminating, as Victoria seemed to in essence be choreographing who would replace then elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Perhaps more importantly, what she suggested should happen actually happened. The BBC wrote an article on it:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Darker still is the role of what I call the Euromaidan Massacre in creating the conditions for Yanukovych's ouster. I've seen no hard evidence that the U.S. government played a role in it, but the fact that American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger played a key role in it suggests that it may well have done so. My go to article for a while on the Euromaidan Massacre has been this one:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684

Some people don't like the Global Research site, but the article actually relies heavily on an Italian documentary on the event. It's also not the only article that brings up said Italian documentary and Brian Christopher Boyenger. Here's another I just found:

https://gordonhahn.com/2017/11/17/foreign-involvement-in-february-2014-maidan-terrorist-sniper-attack/

 

I just finished listening to an article from Mearsheimer on audible.com that was originally published in Foreign Affairs 10 years ago. For anyone who hasn't heard of him, I think Wikipedia's introduction of the man is good:

**

John Joseph Mearsheimer (/ˈmɪərʃaɪmər/; born December 14, 1947)^[3] is an American political scientist and international relations scholar. He is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago.

**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

He published his Foreign Affairs article months after Euromaidan and Russia's annexation of Crimea. Even then, he put the blame for the crisis squarely on the West. His article can be seen here:

Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault : The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin

Here's the introduction to his article:

**

According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine.

But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine—beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004—were critical elements, too. Since the mid1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president—which he rightly labeled a “coup”—was the )nal straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.

**

I don't know where he got this notion that Russia was "working to destabilize Ukraine", but apart from that, I think he was on the nose. Even 10 years ago, the issue of Ukraine joining NATO was clearly something that Russia adamantly didn't want happening. He addresses this too, and I think was quite prescient as to where this would lead:

**

One also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to prevent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when powerful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West. It is in Ukraine’s interest to understand these facts of life and tread carefully when dealing with its more powerful neighbor.

Even if one rejects this analysis, however, and believes that Ukraine has the right to petition to join the EU and NATO, the fact remains that the United States and its European allies have the right to reject these requests. There is no reason that the West has to accommodate The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral bu!er. John J. Mearsheimer 12 FOREIGN AFFAIRS Ukraine if it is bent on pursuing a wrong-headed foreign policy, especially if its defense is not a vital interest for them. Indulging the dreams of some Ukrainians is not worth the animosity and strife it will cause, especially for the Ukrainian people.

**

 

Edited November 26, 2024 by phoenyx75

[NAME REMOVED]

15 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

 

I understand that you're unaware of the threat that NATO poses to Russia, sucks to be you. Maybe just stay quiet and make people guess how stupid you are. 

In your mind, NATO poses a threat to Russia. It speaks volumes that you amplify Russia propaganda. Do you hate North America, or democracy?

[Venandi]

3 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

In your mind, NATO poses a threat to Russia. It speaks volumes that you amplify Russia propaganda. Do you hate North America, or democracy?

OK, I have to ask... considering what appeared to be the push for Ukraine to join NATO:

- Do you honestly think that someone who opines that Russia might (maybe / possibly) consider a new entrant to NATO on their southern border to be a threat is amplifying Russian propaganda?

Is it possible that a thoughtful grade 6 geography student might pose the same question? He might even join a few dots and ask if Russia would consider the home of the Black Sea Fleet to be something they're loath to relinquish control over.

Put another way, are you suggesting that Russia wouldn't see this as a threat, maybe even a provocation? I'd like to know why you think they wouldn't because using your logic, virtually any military member doing the most rudimentary estimate of the situation (EOTS) whilst listening to the news on the drive to work suddenly qualifies as a Russian asset in your mind.

-Taken a step further, are you asserting that holding that opinion, or in the case of our grade 6 student, asking questions about the strategic importance of Ukraine and Crimea (to Russia) is an overt display of hatred toward North America in general and democracy in particular?  

For context, I would have thought all this might be worthy of a moments reflection...  

 

 

Edited November 26, 2024 by Venandi

[NAME REMOVED]

13 minutes ago, Venandi said:

OK, I have to ask... considering what appeared to be the push for Ukraine to join NATO:

- Do you honestly think that someone who opines that Russia might (maybe / possibly) consider a new entrant to NATO on their southern border to be a threat is amplifying Russian propaganda?

Is it possible that a thoughtful grade 6 geography student might pose the same question? He might even join a few dots and ask if Russia would consider the home of the Black Sea Fleet to be something they're loath to relinquish control over.

Put another way, are you suggesting that Russia wouldn't see this as a threat, maybe even a provocation? I'd like to know why you think they wouldn't because using your logic, virtually any military member doing the most rudimentary estimate of the situation (EOTS) whilst listening to the news on the drive to work suddenly qualifies as a Russian asset in your mind.

-Taken a step further, are you asserting that holding that opinion, or in the case of our grade 6 student, asking questions about the strategic importance of Ukraine and Crimea (to Russia) is an overt display of hatred toward North America in general and democracy in particular?  

 

 

 

Very strange, considering there was no attempt to join NATO by Ukraine, until after Russia invaded in 2014. If we want to take this a step further, the majority Ukrainians were against joining NATO, until Russia decided to do a complete invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022.

Additionally, Russia has been bordering NATO countires for nearly 25 years, and until the late 2000s, actually was cooperating with NATO, especially in regards to the War on Terror. 

For context, I would have thought all this might be worthy of a moments reflection for you...  

[NAME REMOVED]

9 hours ago, Radiorum said:

I have a bit of a hard time imagining that Trump will just end the war by giving in to Putin’s demands.

The European Union seems to think so...

 

 

[Dougie93]

On 11/17/2024 at 5:12 PM, WestCanMan said:

Biden just can't stop escalating this war. 

The worthless old piece of sh1t is only a year away from dying of old age so the threat of nuclear war is meaningless to him. 

the Russians are not going to go nuclear in this situation

first of all, the Russians are winning, slowly but surely, grinding the Ukrainians down

it's just a matter of time until the Ukrainians are forced to sue for an armitice

the window of opportunity to defeat the Russians was more than two years ago

yet NATO simply did not provide the Ukrainians with even a fraction of what they needed to get that done

but furthermore, the brink of nuclear war is not going to be reached on land in the Donbass

things do not escalate to that strategic level until it escalates to the high seas

basically when one side or the other attempts to impose a naval blockade ; Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0

but furthermore,  there are several stages the Russians would go to prior to all out war

there's plenty of nuclear sabre rattling options before it comes to that

step one would be to resume nuclear testing, with underground tests

step two would be to breach the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by conducting an atmospheric test

in terms of a Russian naval blockade, that's going to  be when they deploy their submarines

starting with seabed warfare

they start widespread cutting of underwater communications and power cables, and pipelines

then they escalate to mining the choke points to disrupt the Sea Lines of Communication

so when the internet starts going down, the power gets cut off

and ships start getting sunk, grinding global trade to a halt ?

okay, then you can start digging your bomb shelter

Edited November 26, 2024 by Dougie93

[Venandi]

39 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Very strange, considering there was no attempt to join NATO by Ukraine, until after Russia invaded in 2014. If we want to take this a step further, the majority Ukrainians were against joining NATO, until Russia decided to do a complete invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022.

Additionally, Russia has been bordering NATO countires for nearly 25 years, and until the late 2000s, actually was cooperating with NATO, especially in regards to the War on Terror. 

For context, I would have thought all this might be worthy of a moments reflection for you...  

Pretty oblique IMO...

Does that mean it was reasonable to conclude that Ukraine (and Crimea for that matter) are / were somehow not of major strategic importance to Russia and any expectation (before the fact) that there might be pushback is the sole domain of misguided MAGA loons? 

I'm left wondering what you thought was going to happen here? In the end, I don't see Ukraine winning this and I would suggest that part of the reason for that is the lack of full on commitment from NATO itself. 

All told, this adventure was something best avoided and I think you're going to be disappointed with how it ends. All I'm suggesting is that for some, your pending disappointment was (sadly) predictable and that the actions (and lack of action) of those not considering the possibility will eventually be seen as contributory.

Then again, be assured that I'm rooting for ya... best of luck with it.

Edited November 26, 2024 by Venandi