Nothing in what he wrote was insane.Utter insanity. Every word.
Doing exactly what it's grandaddy (the Dragon) was made to do: Blow up Russian tanks invading Europe.Quite effective the javelin as well.
Is this true though? How does such a tiny economy keep 900k men well equipped? Along with the expensive nuclear arsenal and delivery systems? I'd be willing to bet that they sent the good stuff first.Am I wrong in thinking there's a never ending supply of Russian machinery and soldiers, though?
Even if Ukraine holds on valiantly, how long can they sustain their defense?
Your not wrong and he is probably willing to sacrifice a good chuck of them, there will be a limit somewhere though.Am I wrong in thinking there's a never ending supply of Russian machinery and soldiers, though?
Even if Ukraine holds on valiantly, how long can they sustain their defense?
Yeah, I have a feeling that is why United kept quiet about it.Which could now give United the legal excuse to end the deal.
Then it all becomes irrelevant because you are talking about an end of the world scenario. They won't move beyond Ukraine and may not even be glad that they moved into Ukraine. This could go very bad for Russia.What if the Russian army decides to keep going through Moldova, Romania, Poland?
They won't hold forever, but it will do wonders to keep the national spirit burning in their civilians to know that the soldiers fought to the very end.Am I wrong in thinking there's a never ending supply of Russian machinery and soldiers, though?
Even if Ukraine holds on valiantly, how long can they sustain their defense?
That's why I mentioned the warthogs above too.Doing exactly what it's grandaddy (the Dragon) was made to do: Blow up Russian tanks invading Europe.
Their military spending goes almost 3 times further than US spending would for example, because they buy from themselves, not from corporations at top dollar to suck funds from taxpayers.Is this true though? How does such a tiny economy keep 900k men well equipped? Along with the expensive nuclear arsenal and delivery systems? I'd be willing to bet that they sent the good stuff first.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
And they have what? 10.000 tanks?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Well yeah but even then... It's not like russian state owned companies are renowned for their efficiency either. Obviously not paying for gas etc. helps but there are limits.Their military spending goes almost 3 times further than US spending would for example, because they buy from themselves, not from corporations at top dollar to suck funds from taxpayers.
Yes, Obama was largely spot on, as was Putin's current assessment. The west dont want to take the risk of escalation. This is understandable, but it is ultimately illogical as it simply serves to strengthen and embolden Putin and other authoritarian regimes around the globe.Yep, and it's a very safe calculation. Obama basically said it in 2016. Ukraine matters far more to Russia than it does to the West when it comes to the prospect of war.
Remember when Trump didn't want to give Zelenski these till he fabricated dirt on Joe Biden... fecking maniacQuite effective the javelin as well.
I am not sure how people can be confident things will go back to normal.Then it all becomes irrelevant because you are talking about an end of the world scenario. They won't move beyond Ukraine and may not even be glad that they moved into Ukraine. This could go very bad for Russia.
It's far from never-ending, but the key is not just the numbers, the key is buying time by stalling the progress. If Ukraine puts up a good fight it might change the course of the whole conflict, but if Kiev falls quickly, say in two weeks, then it will definitely hurt their position afterwards and give Putin a lot of control over the situation.Am I wrong in thinking there's a never ending supply of Russian machinery and soldiers, though?
Even if Ukraine holds on valiantly, how long can they sustain their defense?
Russia has nukes and Putin has basically said if you fight us, we're happy to go full nuclear apocalypse to prove ours is larger.Hypothetically, if the NATO sends all its military forces to Ukraine, would they not (easily) win against Russia? Could they not set an example and use it as a deterrent for any psychos in the future with the same ideas as Putin?
And if they could, why are they not doing so? Not that I think it would be a good idea or anything but just want to understand the reasoning. Just to avoid a bigger conflict involving EU countries, not wanting to send people into a war zone, afraid of a nuclear war? Does the alternative (economic sanctions like they're doing now) not show then that they're actually pretty weak and not a real "alliance"? Or would their stance be different if it was an actual NATO country involved?
There will be compromise, weakness, and hesitation because those are not always bad things and that's how the world works. Germany isn't willing to stop buying gas and oil from Russia because it will close its economy down overnight. That is a compromise. This has all been factored in. Putin had to know the extent of what NATO was wiling to do in terms of sanctions and went ahead anyway. There will be sanctions but all of these have been taken into account and Putin is gambling that Ukraine is worth it.There cannot be compromise, there cannot be weakness and there cannot be hesitation
Yeah, because a load of EU banks have made loans to Russian companies and want to be repaid.Reports are that the UK wants to eject from Russia from SWIFT with immediate effect, but EU nations are largely opposing it.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The European Central Bank has warned lenders with significant exposure to Russia to ready themselves for the imposition of international sanctions against the country if Moscow invades Ukraine.
The warning from the ECB, which supervises 115 of the biggest eurozone banks, came as the US warned that Russia would face “massive consequences” if sent troops into Ukraine. Sanctions would raise considerable risks for the international banks with large Russian exposure including Citi in the US, France’s Société Générale, Austria’s Raiffeisen and Italy’s UniCredit.
ECB officials have asked for details of how the banks would handle different scenarios, such as a move to block Russian banks from accessing the Swift international payments system, according to several people briefed on the talks.
I tend to agree with this, that clown meme and the 4 stages of denial come to mind.I am not sure how people can be confident things will go back to normal.
We're not talking about some Western politician who talks a lot and does little. Putin and his cabal have the money and are insane enough to cross any red line.
And by bad for Russia, you mean bad for their people, right? Putin doesn't a give a feck about them.
I think "shouldn't" is a better term. Conventional thinking has clearly been abandoned by Putin, and he will have enough people on his side that back him/share his views for him to continue. If they do seize control of Ukraine, and their economy isn't completely dead because of the isolation that will bring, what does that do to a 70 something year olds mind that knows he wont live forever, and wants to leave a legacy behind? In his head, he has to return land to Russia, and he feels he has the resources and power to do it. I have a feeling that China are the only power who may be able to deescalate this before it descends into something that will completely obliterate the next generations chance at a peaceful world.Then it all becomes irrelevant because you are talking about an end of the world scenario. They won't move beyond Ukraine and may not even be glad that they moved into Ukraine. This could go very bad for Russia.
Aye, their military machine is much ‘leaner’ than the US (best way I’ve heard to describe it).Their military spending goes almost 3 times further than US spending would for example, because they buy from themselves, not from corporations at top dollar to suck funds from taxpayers.
It would need some time for NATO/ US to mobilize their armies. Remember that Russia has been toying with the idea for a year and has had 100k soldiers near the border for months. Add to that, Russia likely has better Intel in Ukraine considering their connections.Hypothetically, if the NATO sends all its military forces to Ukraine, would they not (easily) win against Russia? Could they not set an example and use it as a deterrent for any psychos in the future with the same ideas as Putin?
And if they could, why are they not doing so? Not that I think it would be a good idea or anything but just want to understand the reasoning. Just to avoid a bigger conflict involving EU countries, not wanting to send people into a war zone, afraid of a nuclear war? Does the alternative (economic sanctions like they're doing now) not show then that they're actually pretty weak and not a real "alliance"? Or would their stance be different if it was an actual NATO country involved?
Yes, and this is why I am saying that the response needs to be stronger, and why the West needs to at least give the impression that they are prepared to go to war over this (but only if they are actually prepared to follow through on this). Putin's strategy works because people believe his threats. He threatens escalation and nuclear war, and nobody calls him out on it. He is the poker player who goes all-in every single round.There will be compromise, weakness, and hesitation because those are not always bad things and that's how the world works. Germany isn't willing to stop buying gas and oil from Russia because it will close its economy down overnight. That is a compromise. This has all been factored in. Putin had to know the extent of what NATO was wiling to do in terms of sanctions and went ahead anyway. There will be sanctions but all of these have been taken into account and Putin is gambling that Ukraine is worth it.
Moving beyond the Ukraine is not a red flag, it's a literal nuclear war (mutual defense pacts necessitate it). So if he does move beyond Ukraine then all of this will be pointless as you will see nukes flying at some point. He wants Ukraine for whatever reasons, I don't see why he would risk his own destruction and that of his state if his goal is a monarchic Russia.I am not sure how people can be confident things will go back to normal.
We're not talking about some Western politician who talks a lot and does little. Putin and his cabal have the money and are insane enough to cross any red line.
And by bad for Russia, you mean bad for their people, right? Putin doesn't a give a feck about them.
The problem is on how to enforce a non-fly zone? Just shoot the Russian aircrafts (easily doable).As an armchair general... In my opinion a no-fly zone should have been put in place, with the agreement of Ukraine for both sides aircraft, helicopters and missiles. That would have forced this to be ground only which I personally think would have deterred this entire thing.
Shame leaders don't have spines generally in the West anymore.
Russia has nukes and Putin has basically said if you fight us, we're happy to go full nuclear apocalypse to prove ours is larger.
fecking boomer.
This thread was made a more than a month ago, surely US intelligence services would have been aware of an incoming conflict in Ukraine for a few months as well?It would need some time for NATO/ US to mobilize their armies. Remember that Russia has been toying with the idea for a year and has had 100k soldiers near the border for months. Add to that, Russia likely has better Intel in Ukraine considering their connections.
Saying that, in a large-scale conventional war, the US would absolutely dominate Russia. Within the first week, US would have total aerial dominance and Russia’s fleet would get destroyed soon after.
But, that essentially guarantees nuclear warfare. And then, billions would die.
I'm far from an expert (just look at my username ffs) but if NATO rolled in then suddenly you have Putin telling Russians that the world is out to destroy them and suddenly that 900,000 Russian troops become millions.Hypothetically, if the NATO sends all its military forces to Ukraine, would they not (easily) win against Russia? Could they not set an example and use it as a deterrent for any psychos in the future with the same ideas as Putin?
And if they could, why are they not doing so? Not that I think it would be a good idea or anything but just want to understand the reasoning. Just to avoid a bigger conflict involving EU countries, not wanting to send people into a war zone, afraid of a nuclear war? Does the alternative (economic sanctions like they're doing now) not show then that they're actually pretty weak and not a real "alliance"? Or would their stance be different if it was an actual NATO country involved?
