Russia has been using the harbour to load and offload ships; RT News even did a piece on it. Even better they did a piece on the fact that Russia shot down a Ukrainian missile which tried to attack the port... the same type of missile which reportedly hit successfully this morning:
So no I don't think they even needed to do anything complicated: Russia were complacent and kept their vessels tied up right alongside the offloading piers and assumed Ukraine had nothing that could hit them.
NATO have been overflying the Black Sea and can surely detect all the surface vessels present though; whatever about submarines.
You tell em Dank. Roosky faces down the Russkies!
Hopefully a few Russian sailors drowned ? Or was it an empty ship ?
Anyone have the venn diagram of the Biden admin, global chaos and Trump? would be interesting to see.
Looks like Germany is to take Russia to court for breach of contract 🤦
The term "Nuclear War" can describe many different potential scenarios - hundreds in fact.
Comparisons are not possible, this situation has never happened before. The WW2 use of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki is completely incomparable so we're left with a handful of tense, stand-offs such as Cuba. Again, nothing like the Ukraine Invasion by a Nuclear Swinging Russian has ever happened before.
So, who strikes first and who do they strike?
Is there a tit-for-tat retaliation or an "all-in" response?
If the West strikes first, Russia is the obvious target, but where and what kind of target?
If Russia were to retaliate, would they strike the US, or another NATO country, or Ukraine, or a neighbour of Ukraine?
As I said, hundreds of combinations of sequences are possible.
Either way, Putin must be faced down until he's deposed or assassinated.
The reality is Putin has to be faced down on his threats otherwise he is free to do what he likes across Europe.
hundreds of combinations of sequences are possible.
Are there really though? Seems to me it's like when a shemozzle starts in a GAA match: one in all in until we reach
The only way it might be limited is if Russia fired a tactical one-off or two-off at Ukraine while simultaneously assuring the West through back channels that it no intention of widening the conflict. That would leave NATO leaders with a teriible choice...
This is reportedly the ship that was destroyed.
You keep implying that Trump was some sort of strong man deterrent. I don't think you will find much of an audience for that here. He tried to pressure Zielinsky for dirt on Biden by withholding aid, he believed Putin rather than his own intelligence services, he divided the allies and was looking disband NATO. The one crisis he had during his presidency he handled terribly, by trying to wish it away, or suggesting to injecting bleach FFS!
Just another fat little despot with small-man syndrome flexing his flabby muscles.
Even if they did assuage them through back channels... Why would Nato believe them? Also the fallout will hit Nato countries.
I reckon all this talk is to put the shitters up the NATO conference coming up.
It might leave NATO with a terrible choice re. nuclear response. What there would be however would be an immediate full NATO response with conventional forces. I assume that’s what you mean by the choice. There is zero chance a nuclear strike in Europe goes without an immediate and overwhelming response. I would expect planes in the sky immediately and a shock and awe strike of Russian forces everywhere
Not this shite again.
Would you be ok with Biden/Harris using aid to countries as leverage to get dirt on the republican candidate for 2024? Or is it just Trump who is allowed do that?
I am not a "fan" of a politician, I find that a rather odd concept. I think in this case the US is doing a reasonably good job in Ukraine, provide support, training and intelligence. The Ukrainians should be able to do the job on Russia without getting NATO involved. We don't hear much about Biden because it isn't like the Trump show, where he is always front and center taking credit for everything and blaming someone else for any mistakes.
I have a feeling that "journalist" won't be doing a follow up piece on that boat !!
It's interesting, this idea that Trump would have told Putin where to get off, when throughout his "presidency" Trump had his tongue so far up Putin's arse he was practically licking the KGB man's back teeth.
I hope it's nothing, but Peskov recently said:
"Kremlin: Russia would only use nuclear weapons if its existence were threatened" https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-russia-would-only-use-nuclear-weapons-if-its-existence-were-threatened-2022-03-22/
Which might actually be a climb down from previous rhetoric, given that significant assistance to Ukraine, such as a no-fly zone, wouldn't - at least in western eyes - constitute a threat to Russias existence by a very wide margin.
Now, however I just saw this:
"The existence of Russia itself is at stake today - Head of Russian delegation at talks with Ukraine and former minister of culture Medinsky" https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/24-march-the-existence-of-russia-itself-is-at-stake-today
A bit weird to claim that One of the worlds largest nuclear powers feels it's existence threatened by a non-nuclear neighbour, with a fraction the military strength, becasue they didn't roll over and submit as was hoped.
Um, mate...Biden blackmailed Ukraine to drop an investigation into his son's dealings or they would not get aid.
I mean that statement is up for all kinds of interpretations. Aside from the fact Russia can’t be trusted to abide by international agreements or contracts signed let alone the words contained in a self published nuclear deterrence doctrine. I think it’s beyond clear at this stage that Russian words are utterly meaningless and the only evidence we can use to base our decisions on is their concrete and verifiable actions.
How to roll up a trench... 🙂
(Skip forward to 1:45)
Peskov warns that the criteria for using nukes - the only criteria - is if Russia's existence is threatened. Then a day or two later, Medinsky says Russia's existence is threatened.
No he didn't, but you admitted: "He (Trump) asked Ukraine for dirt on Bidens because they were doing shady deals there. "
So answer the question, are you ok with the Democrats using similar tactics in 2024? I mean I assume you are, it would be hypocritical if not.
I wonder if the Russian troops in Ukraine or planning to go to Ukraine realise what they could very well be facing if Nato get involved
Source?
The Trump thread is that way....--》》》
There's a lot of bravado on Russia's part, predominantly for domestic consumption. The troops may not know but those at the top do and they now know just how poor their own military is.
agreed, sorry for bringing off topic.
This story has been debunked so many times! The prosecutor wasn't investigating Bidens son!
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fact-check-joe-biden-leveraged-ukraine-aid-oust-corrupt-prosecutor/5991434002/
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/07abd39dc4f0afde3c391afc78cc920e.svg)
