Dam straight I did when it comes to nukes, the amount of damage they cause, the decades long effects, the environmental damage etc is beyond what you all can imagine, nukes should only ever be a last resort.
And I totally agree with you on that... only a fucking idiot would think using nukes is a first option, but for the west invasion and regime change has been the first option implemented just after economic sanctions and international ridicule and isolation.
The west however is pushing Russia into a corner where their options are limited to nukes or surrender... and then the choice is clear cut.
And it is all because the US does not want to admit it is wrong and Russia is right.
Hope those poles understand.
Also suggesting Russia has any moral right to use them to defend annexed territory is funny, is that the play countries should make now?
Cut out the western propaganda bullshit... the west is pushing Russia into a corner and threatening to send a proxy force onto their territory...
How would the US react if Russia said the territory Mexico lost to the US is really Mexican territory and build bio weapons labs in Mexico and send weapons and nukes and train up their forces with the intention of invading the US and getting Mexican territory back?
The US wouldn't resort to nukes my arse.
The US was talking about using small nukes as bunker busters to deal with tunnels in Afghanistan and also Iran...
Annex land and go "this is part of our country now, you attack us there we nuke you"
Russia didn't annex anything... regions of Ukraine after being shelled by their own country for 8 years voted to become part of the Russian Federation.
Russia voted to accept them into the federation. Annexing didn't come in to it.
That's asinine, and if you defend.that stance alright don't bitch is a country you don't like does it in the future
You mean the way Britain claims the vote by the people to join Russia in these regions of the Ukraine... including Crimea, are illegitimate, but the parlimentary vote that did not include a public vote in Kosovo is legal and legitimate in law?
Or the vote of Falkland Islanders counts but not for others like those in Guam or the Marshall Islands?
Let me be clear of you support the use of nuclear weapons, unless it is in direct defense of your homeland (not counting annexed turf) then I honestly don't wanna see you bitch how the US is evil.because at that point you're no better.
Russia defending itself from the militaristic west any way they see fit is legitimate... there have been dozens of points where the west could have stopped this from not starting it in the first place, to the illegal coup in 2014, to the banning of a language... how democratic is that? That only happened in colonial countries like New Zealand and Australia where the natives were beaten for speaking their own languages... is that acceptable now?
There were two Minsk Agreements... either of which would have avoided this conflict and were violated by Kiev every day of the 8 years they refused to implement them and openly admitted by France and Germany as a means to prepare Kiev for this very war that was clearly planned by the west...
So don't get pissy over Russia defending itself... that is what nukes are for ultimately... this is literally the definition of a last resort and the west continues to escalate things... thinking nukes are not a possibility.... perhaps telling them that they are always an option and ironically if Putin is kicked out of power the chances of their use will increase by an order of magnitude over night.
Unlikenyou, I have seen the effects, I have seen the after math, it's a horror show. I would never wish to subject and innocent soul to such a thing
Hahahahaha... that is hilarious... the detonation of one nuke in western Ukraine or even Poland wont kill the 200K that this conflict has probably already killed.... why are you so damn precious over nukes.... if they had dropped it on day one on Kiev and killed all the US puppets and US advisors advising the government in Kiev this might be all over now.... sure lots of innocents would die, but innocents always die in war... you've experienced that too haven't you... yet even the worst case scenario of a Russian nuke in Ukraine or even poland couldn't match the death and destruction the west is responsible for from the last two decades... Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, the list is enormous, as is the death toll and suffering, and with DU ammo there are even radiation effects but they are hushed up, while radiation effects in Europe would be broadcast and focussed on.... when white people are in the firing line it is different to some japs or some sand niggers... except when it is snow niggers.
There are volunteer who help civilians and act further away from the front and they don’t dress in military uniforms. For those who play combat medic, they will eventually see the combat. I believe that those helping civilians shouldn’t be put into harm way, but couldn’t care about those who willingly go to combat zones and then act surprised that they become targets.
Totally agree... if you are press then you don't wear camouflage, you wear body armour but normally blue or black like police armour and you have PRESS on your front and back to make it clear you are a non combatant. If these guys were civilian medics then they should not have been wearing camo gear and should have had medic or similar written clearly front and back on their non camo body armour.
Who gives a shit?
It is entertaining that CNN thinks this is news while innocent civilians get killed on both sides, but because this guy is American it is news worthy...
Perhaps this is also a good opportunity to transition to Koalitsiya howitzers, or maybe arm MSTAs with Koalitsiya cannon
Stopping producing what is in mass production to produce something new and better is the mistake the Germans did famously in WWII... they stopped production of the Panzer IV tanks which were effective if used well with later model guns, so they could produce Panthers... Panzer Vs... which meant delivery of Panzer IVs stopped but the Panzer V was not ready so they had no tanks for a period when anything was better than nothing.
Makes more sense to continue production of the old stuff till the new stuff is in full production and then shift production of old to new stuff one factory at a time so you don't get periods of no production at all.
Not every shell is fired to max range so even D-30 guns are useful if the targets are not that far away.
And how many did you persuade?
I know that not a single American fell for it
Actually it was the civilian US population that actually ended the war, which is why the US military cracked down on western media and made them her bitches ever since and anti war protests in the west have become minority events of fringe value only and wars become the first option instead of the last.
Jesus Christ this is what I hate about going slow. It gives the rats time to dig in again. And then the whole fucking process repeats itself.
Doesn't matter... there is no deadline... if they want to dig in then they are static targets... they wont have the fuel or vehicles for mobility anyway, and Russia can get some practise hitting their supply lines...
It is not about speed or land... it is about their hardline static defences that they reinforce with new blood over and over.... where is all this blood going?
Anyone know any Russians? How they holding up? This is a horrific mess. Those like Nuland deserve much punishment for what they have done. Not just to Russia and Ukraine but to the future of our country as well.
As you point out, these people are breaking the world domination of the US via tools like SWIFT and the US dollar being the international currency of trade... but more than that... western shipping companies and shipping insurance was mostly western based, but now countries are having to find alternatives and are setting up their own shipping companies to bypass western sanctions or potential future western sanctions, as well as non-western financial institutions going into insurance... which didn't just make money for the west but gave them a bit of control of world trade too... all gone...
I have a retarded five year old tier question. Why can't they tell civilians to evacuate and then raze the small city and nearby areas to dust? Surely tos-1 missiles and air bombardment could easily do this.
Most of those who can leave already have.
The amount of explosives needed to destroy every potential hiding position in even a very small town would be enormous and simply not practical unless you could deliver it all at once... which you can't.
Needless to say the US filled the Vietnamese sky with B-52 bombers filled to capacity with conventional bombs and literally carpet bombed the country... killed a lot of people at the time and even afterwards with unexploded ordinance being a problem for decades afterwards but no coming even close to killing even more than 1% of the population.
You can't wipe out an enemy with air power, you need to send in the troops as the US found in Iraq where they had to send troops into cities and even though they leveled large areas they had to fight with ground forces to actually clear out the enemy.
One of the many reasons Russia needs to liberate Odessa
They are making taking more of the Ukraine a more desirable prospect aren't they?
Ask FP. But my family in Russia is same old, some prices went up, some down, nothing good, nothing too bad. Honestly, pro-UA were wrong that Russians will starve this winter, but pro-Ru were wrong about EU starving as well. It’s the same shit like under covid everywhere.
To be fair about 78 of the 80 odd ships that left Ukraine full of grain went to EU ports... if Russia had said no... things would be different... even if most of it was animal feed the contents of 78 ships is significant.
Russia could easily have taken a financial hit in the short term and cut Europe off from all gas and oil deliveries and said no to discounts so India and China would not be so interested to buy Russian energy to sell to Europe.
There's no way to solve this but militarily. Persuasion will not work, there are reasonable Ukrainians about and those who have a clue what has led to this situation, but they're either out of the country or completely passive, as usual.
It is not a case of one or the other... it makes the most sense to try both... at the same time... let them pick what breaks their resolve in the end...
They cannot claim to be on the side of truth if they don't investigate both sides
You can only see how deluded one side is by looking at both sides and comparing them with what you know and understand.