Jump to content

How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?


Probus

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Russia said it wouldn't invade the Ukraine I wouldn't believe whatever the Belarus leader says. 

He just tries to dodge new sanctions. That would also benefit Putin. He's a partner in crime, no matter whether he invades or not.

Edited by Aragorn2002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sarjen said:
And Belarus won't join Russian war in Ukraine?  Could that be true?

 

In the same statement he also denies that Russian forces are attacking Ukraine from Belarusian territory, so obviously he cannot be taken seriously.

Edited by Panserjeger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GAZ NZ said:

So why did Russia go this hard out and lose everything? 

The whole world is against it

Just to invade Ukraine 

Doesn't make sense 

If Russia is that screwed and Putins losing it what's stopping them from nuking Nato/US? 

It's really concerning 

Some of the world isn't against it. Some of the older folks faintly remember the missile crisis with Cuba '62, where team B's weaponry was parked in team A's backyard. The missiles weren't ready at the time but the risk of that threat proximity was too great and the US got tough - they had to. Some people in the world, including folks in the US, see this current situation in the same light; the Ukraine is Russia's backyard and within the past year NATO inclusion has been Ok'd by the US administration. Now if, after Ukraine's been split in two, Putin moves on the Western portion, that's no longer a backyard issue and then you might see more people being willing to vote for a foreign war. Right now, not so much. Obviously the Western portion could subsequently be invited to join NATO; that could be the crux of complication in the next few weeks, there are arguments both sides about whether that's a good thing to do. Won't be a pleasant task for the peacemakers but they could make it work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unverified reports of russia using thermobaric bombs, how will this change the political landscape seeing as how they are against the Geneva convention.  Yes I know russia is not a signatory, but NATO is and I think we may see NATO's stance becoming even firmer with more pro-active action, otherwise how far do we let Putin go.  

 

He said he wouldnt bomb indiscriminately, binned that cause the going got tough, threatened nukes, now just to test the waters again he authorises the use of thermobarics.  At some point NATO has to give him and russian forces a severe bloody nose, enough is enough, no more lines will be crossed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mft004 said:

... the Ukraine is Russia's backyard and within the past year NATO inclusion has been Ok'd by the US administration. Now if, after Ukraine's been split in two, Putin moves on the Western portion, that's no longer a backyard issue and then you might see more people being willing to vote for a foreign war....

I don't get this - it's ok for Russia to mess with Ukraine ( occupy, dismember, whatever ) because "it's their backyard" ?
By that logic, Canada should just take Alaska - it's much more their backyard than the USA's...

Plus any NATO missiles in Latvia/Estonia are practically the same distance from Moscow as a missile in Ukraine, so why isn't that a problem ?
It couldn't possibly be because Putin can't attack them owing to the defensive nature of NATO ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Baneman said:

I don't get this - it's ok for Russia to mess with Ukraine ( occupy, dismember, whatever ) because "it's their backyard" ?
By that logic, Canada should just take Alaska - it's much more their backyard than the USA's...

Plus any NATO missiles in Latvia/Estonia are practically the same distance from Moscow as a missile in Ukraine, so why isn't that a problem ?
It couldn't possibly be because Putin can't attack them owing to the defensive nature of NATO ? 

Indeed, Putin would not attack Ukraine if it was currently in NATO, much like the USA would have had to have thought twice about attacking Cuba if Cuba was part of the Warsaw Pact. As to Canada and Alaska, they are thankfully not nuclear opponents. We have enough trouble in the world without that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

By Putins logic it is part of russia, then...

Yep, it is.

But (strangely), "historical" bits of the "Russian Empire" that can defend themselves are exempt from rejoining.
Funny that. Must just be coincidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Doc844 said:

At some point NATO has to give him and russian forces a severe bloody nose, enough is enough, no more lines will be crossed.

The solution could be to destroy russia economically. The russians will purge away Putins regime by themselves then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

https://espreso.tv/do-1400-bulo-znishcheno-ponad-200-odinits-tekhniki-okupantiv-na-napryamkakh-trasi-irpin-zhitomir-arestovich

 

Is that true? @Haiduk 200 destroyed vehicles? @Battlefront.com

 

"At 14:00 more than 200 units of equipment were destroyed by the occupiers on the road Irpin-Zhytomyr, - Arestovich"

"Adviser to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Oleksiy Arestovych said that more than 200 units of enemy equipment were destroyed this morning on the Irpin-Zhytomyr highway
He wrote on his Facebook about the loss of the enemy on the route between Kyiv and Zhytomyr.

"My God, you would know how we sweep them in the morning near Kyiv. According to confirmed estimates, by 2 pm more than 200 units of various vehicles on the Irpin-Zhytomyr highway were destroyed and damaged," Arestovich said."

Answer myself. On NASA Fire map you could se a 5 km long fire outside berezivka West of Kiev along the m06 highway. yesterday afternoon. So possibly True. https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#t:adv;d:2022-02-27..2022-02-28;@30.1,50.4,12z

@Haiduk @Battlefront.com

Edited by Armorgunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Baneman said:

By that logic, Canada should just take Alaska - it's much more their backyard than the USA's...

Hmm, you mean free our northern brothers from the yoke of wealth and prosperity.  I like this plan but Alaska has a hidden WMD; they have some nasty breeds of moose up there.  I am talking big bastards that you do not want to mess with, like kick-the-side-of-a-LAV-in bulls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Hmm, you mean free our northern brothers from the yoke of wealth and prosperity.  I like this plan but Alaska has a hidden WMD; they have some nasty breeds of moose up there.  I am talking big bastards that you do not want to mess with, like kick-the-side-of-a-LAV-in bulls.

And polar bears : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...