Maybe now but not by the end of march. Also, i think i recall that russia would not mobilize, but i might be wrong. All in all, i dont think any analist had it right in predictions more than 3-4 weeks. And i doubt they know how kherson front will play seeing such a strategic important placeTo be fair to him, his following posts qualify that statement a bit and he wasn't that far wrong. Russia was an exhausted force and abandoned its entire operation in the North not long later.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
edit: It was actually 3 weeks almost to the day that they withdrew from Northern Ukraine
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
I mean it won't happen but hypothetically I don't see how NATO setting up a no fly zone over for example Kyiv to intercept missiles attacking a civilian population would be an attack on anyone. To the best of my knowledge Russia aren't flying jets or helicopters anywhere near Kyiv so there would be little chance of a situation arising where NATO forces would be shooting at Russian aircraft.
Also, please forget WW3. A World War needs two sides or similar strength. NATO is one side, what is the other side? The Russians? The Russians do not have any military strength, they can't even beat Ukraine. NATO vs Russia is something like France vs Malta, it is completely meaningless. Using nukes is also not a World War, it is suicide, and it will be over in a matter of days. No, Putin does not want to commit suicide, his Russist ideology is not crazy enough. If he was some hard-core religious fanatic, then maybe... but he isn't.
Well comparing Russia to Malta is kind of absurd though.
The Yugoslavians didn't have nukes.
Let's face it, that's the only reason why Moscow hasn't been flattened and Putin dead.
Much as I am 99% sure he wouldn't use them, he's got enough of a threat in that 1% to make sure we don't intervene militarily. Shit as it is.
It doesn't really matter what justification NATO members would use if the other side lobs nukes does it?
WIthout nukes, why do you think that the West would have a war with Russia, while they did nothing in Serbia for 4+ years?
Because the chance to take out Russia like this only comes around once in a blue moon. They're the old foe.
Serbia was a regional conflict. Awful as the Balkan war was it's not the same scale of importance to NATO higher ups I'd imagine.
You already see it in how much we've sent to Ukraine to effectively fight for us.
Take Russia out? Who wanted that? Europe wanted to finish Nord Stream 2 and keep investing in Russia. There are still many in Europe who want to end the war and get back into business. Do you really think Scholz would be willing to attack Russia? I can't see it.
Civil war is a war within a country
A war is when it’s between two ethnicities (ie Russia and Ukraine)
If multiple nations get involved ( ie nato v Russia) it would in theory become a world war (ie it became a world war when Germany invaded Poland, then France , Belgium, Holland etc despite it only being one aggressor)
A WW is fought around the world. WW2 Was fought on all continents (except Antarctica, and the Americas saw only very few attacks or naval battles). A war about Ukraine still is just a regional thing as long as no ither fronts are opened.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
There were several countries involved in the invasion of Iraq and that wasn't considered a World War. To be honest all this talk of WW3 in relation to the Russian invasion of Ukraine has puzzled me, unless China got involved (either in europe or in relation to Taiwan) then it wouldn't really be a World War.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
how the turntablesThis can't be seriously official government position, can it? Without a source sounds like someone drunk and frustrated made that proposal.
How the feck can they guarantee the safety of Russian ships that are firing missiles at them?
What planet does this fool live on.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
They have nukes.
OK, so Nato planes then. What could go wrong.
So you're saying that a war that involves a nuclear power is a world war?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What's Erdogans angle in this? Can't help but feel he isn't doing this to make the world a better place.
Making Turkey a regional power-breaker and essentially increasing Turkey’s influence in the region.
They have a very powerful geographic position, controlling the key straight between Russia and the oceans at winter (so Russia have to keep them on side), and being the bridging point between Africa and Europe (so Europe has to keep them on side)
I imagine they want to exploit their influence in Europe, Asia and fast-growing Africa and avert a huge migration crisis from Africa to Turkey.
World War or nuclear war, however you call it it doesn't sound good.
Are you saying it won't be?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Are you saying I'm saying it won't be?
I doubt anyone expected 2 things…
1) the Russian Air Force to be almost a complete non-factor
2) Russian logistics to be run on a 3rd grade reading level
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Seems legit
She doesn’t half waffle some utter bollocks. “Will we win?” - proceeds to drone on and on incoherently.
Can't say I'm not intrigued by the idea of chimps throwing bananas at her.
She had better go and enlist then hadn't she
I could only make it through 3 minutes of that. What a load of tripe. It's interesting though that she is/they are so ideologically bankrupt that their increasing justification for war is a hatred for Western liberal values but they have nothing else to offer apart from a disgust toward the West.
You think back to communism or you think of different religious ideologies that sustain people and there is something there that unites people, but they've got nothing to offer.