Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Russian Invasion of Ukraine


PleaseBlitz

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Is it really though? So, they launch a couple of nukes and take out Lviv and Kyiv.  Is nato going to March into Moscow? Launch a nuke in retaliation?

 

Unless nato territory itself is hit by Russia weapons; they aren’t doing anything. I don’t consider nuclear fallout a trigger. Fallout could happen from a nuke plant meltdown.  

There would certainly be a military reaction to the second and third use of nuclear weaponry in the history of mankind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

There would certainly be a military reaction to the second and third use of nuclear weaponry in the history of mankind.

Yeah, the problem with the idea of there being no response would be that it would demonstrate that nuclear terrorism works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

There would certainly be a military reaction to the second and third use of nuclear weaponry in the history of mankind.

That would be third and fourth.

 

The military reaction after the first and second was surrender

 

2 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

Yeah, the problem with the idea of there being no response would be that it would demonstrate that nuclear terrorism works.

.Well, in fact Putin nuking Ukraine would cause a serious problem to....

 

China!

They have a pact of nuclear defense with Ukraine since 2014 IIRC. So Nuking them would force China to either enter the conflict, or break the treay which wouldn't make them look good.

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

Yeah, the problem with the idea of there being no response would be that it would demonstrate that nuclear terrorism works.

As opposed to chemical terrorism, war crimes, bombing cities to ruins, and setting up evacuation routes and cease fires where they kill or shoot at you anyways?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/04/17/sotu-zelensky-part-2.cnn
 

Obviously a security risk, but the problem with Biden not going is what if Trump gets there first ?

Zelensky would straight up punch Trump out.  I would put money on it.

 

5 hours ago, tshile said:

As opposed to chemical terrorism, war crimes, bombing cities to ruins, and setting up evacuation routes and cease fires where they kill or shoot at you anyways?

 

Well, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

Zelensky would straight up punch Trump out.  I would put money on it.

 

I doubt it, he's not stupid.  As much as everyone might hate it, there's still a nonzero chance Trump is the next US President.  There is no reason to make enemies unnecessarily.   Despite it sometimes looking like Trump was Putin's buddy, the reality is that the US continued to train and supply Ukraine during Trumps presidency.  Its true he tried to twist Ukraine's arm, but in the end the weapons were shipped.   I'm pretty sure Biden admin didn't increase the aid/shipments that much, until the war started.  So the policy positions weren't all that different. If a Trump visit did happen, Zelenskyy would try to strike a balancing act, probably making a quip about being unable to find Hunter Biden's laptop.

Edited by DCSaints_fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

Obviously a security risk, but the problem with Biden not going is what if Trump gets there first ?

 

I mean, we all know Trump is famous for his history of doing what is necessary to go into an active warzone. Bone spurs and all. 

 

Seriously doubt our secret service or military contingent would back such a maneuver anyway. He would have virtually no direct US state sponsored coverage if he tried. I have no worry of that outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word “genocide” should in his opinion be “qualified by jurists, not by politicians” 🤢

 

USA were right they warned us Putin will go to war, we didn't listen. They warn us again about his evilness, we still don't want to listen. President Biden used the term Genocide he was right.

Edited by FrFan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FrFan said:
The word “genocide” should in his opinion be “qualified by jurists, not by politicians” 🤢

 

USA were right they warned us Putin will go to war, we didn't listen. They warn us again about his evilness, we still don't want to listen. President Biden used the term Genocide he was right.

To be honest on this fact, calling it a genocide, even if that looks like it brings more to the table than just a word.

I haven't checked if what Macron said is true or not, but it seems to be.

 

If one country recognize a genocide happening somewhere on the planet, that is their duty to jump right in and make it stop ASAP.

 

So calling that a a genocide and not doing anything to stop it ASAP is just pointless.

Either you recognize it as a genocide and you have to send in army to make it stop by pounding russians forces. Or you just shut up about it.

 

And considering history of Russia, that's just how they do war. I doubt you'll ever find someone saying that the plan how long was to kill them all up to the last one of the ukrainians. They just shoot on everything that is moving and don't care about civilians casualties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...