Please use this thread to continue discussing the war in Ukraine.
All mod instructions from the previous thread remain in force here
Original thread:
To sum up:
Su-34 destroyed in maintenance and repair area
Su-24 (retired) destroyed in maintenance and repair area
Su-34 destroyed/damaged beyond repair in shelter 3
Su-34 damaged in shelter 5
Su-34 damaged in shelter 6
Su-24 possibly damaged in shelter 7
From:
Poor old Vlad,guy really can't catch a break!
Looking a bit nervous.
My concern would be that nuclear weapons should (a) never be used again (b) or only in self defence
It would be best if they could be monitored out of existence but people have not agitated for that.
If a tactical nuke was used in any circumstance at all there is a risk of escalation to strategic nuclear weapons and a mind numbing global disaster for us all…and I feel all talk on the internet about their realistic use is really loose talk.(hear no evil…. is my maxim)
It's not innocuous to suggest Ukraine should not go on the offensive, it's very much to the core of a certain belief. And you should know.
I made the assumption first, then you changed to Chemical weapons. Read back through the muck, I had to.
Re the question. Do you think Ukraine should be the ones to look for peace with Russia and - follow up, separate question - would you advocate Ukraine give up land if Putin said he'd agree to stop fighting.
Putin looking very weak and unable to maintain order at the moment with everything from the prison takeover to the Kursk incursion. This is very, very damaging for a 'strong man' who rules through fear and the promise of order. Having lived through the 80s when Russia/USSR was a genuine 'superpower' I am shaking my head everyday at the growing chaos… and Russia seems to have no answer to it.
Popcorn time
You assumed 'Nukes'. I did not. You'll not change the narrative indeed.
Aftermath of yesterdays fuel ferry strike!
The name calling is embarrassing lads. Primary school stuff. All because someone took great offence at the above innocuous post.
How can I be proven incorrect. It was reasonable to assume that's the "sky is falling" meaning of your post. You subsequently went on to say it could be Chemical Weapons Putin uses, both are war crimes. So, I was hardly (at worst) far off.
If you read the follow up posts I was quite clear, you just chose to ignore them. You made an assumption and jumped on it without reading all I wrote, and were plainly wrong in your assumption/assertion.
But, now that you've cleared that up to your own satisfaction, are you still going to run from my question? You do realise, acknowledging the question and ignoring it equally serves my purpose. Thank you.
which question?
As I mentioned, you posted your clarification as possibly the war crimes that are chemical weapons - AFTER I said 'Nukes'. You'll not change the narrative.
Decent animation with a decent margin of error but it's still very interesting to watch.
Re: Korenevo, it looks like the main plan might be to try and cut it off if they can make it to the Seym River to the North via Tolpino of the town then they'll achieve that.
How can I be proven incorrect. It was reasonable to assume that's the "sky is falling" meaning of your post was 'Da Bomb' - I wasn't the only one to assume such. You subsequently went on to say it could be Chemical Weapons Putin uses, both are war crimes. So, I was hardly (at worst) far off.
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1826933184765784433
IS terrorists take over a russian prison!!
Deliberately didn't embed the link correctly as it's NSFW,but it has been blurred.
Again I didn't pivot, you made an assumption in your , er, contributions and were proven incorrect.
I didn't infer/mean/imply 'Da bomb'; when it was put to me I unequivocally stated that is not what I had been referring to.
I'd even quoted another post to clarify what retribution could be expected.
I do expect Putin to respond the only way he knows how to. Lashing out and destroying civilian infrastructure and accommodation.
I fully expect to hear horrific reports of hospitals, schools, power generation facilities, etc, to be targeted on a much larger level shortly.
Because thats just the kind of cnut he is.
Is that clear enough for you or do you need to continue to misrepresent what I read to countenance your assumption and misunderstanding of what I wrote?
It would not be a good idea for the Russians to use one. (hence me saying it could be a blessing for the Ukrainians) Using a Tactical nuke on an Ukrainian military target would be pretty gruesome, I would assume that after the russians using one, the rest of this bloody conflict would be short lived, saving thousands upon thousands of innocent lives.
But escalation wise Russia will not use one and strategically its not wise to do so either, mainly because you cannot occupy a position you just nuked ( Russians digging around Chernobyl thought otherwise)
Interesting piece below for relevance
https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/AUPress/Book-Reviews/Display/Article/2462838/atomic-salvation-how-the-a-bomb-saved-the-lives-of-32-million-people/#:~:text=Lewis%20estimates%20that%20the%20bombing,of%20roughly%2030%20million%20people.
"Lewis estimates that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to the extent that it induced Japanese surrender, saved the lives of roughly 30 million people."
Another 5 pages of shite from another poster who thinks the Russian army is the power that the Soviet army was in 1945 to 1989, without the Warsaw pact economies, without 1/3 of the population of the Soviet Union, with 30 years of theft and lies of the post communist era, with the black sea fleet now sitting on the ocean floor, and with 2 years of battlefield loss, and currently begging from North Korea.
It is actually pathetic to think how gullable some people are.
Second time that's happened. What's that saying, first time is a misfortune, second time is careless. 😂
Meanwhile ISIS taken over a prison in Volgograd and running riot with hostages
Poor Putin can’t get a break
Dear gawd, having to read through your, er, contributions is bad enough the first time.
"The danger in all of these recent Ukrainian success's is that the response from Putin also increases in its requirement for retribution - both in actuality on the ground and in propaganda."
This is your post - "retribution" are you saying it's totally unreasonable to assume you're talking about 'Da bomb' here, considering the context?
Once I mentioned nukes you pivoted to chemical weapons etc as possible retribution.
Anyway, now that that is cleared up for any reasonable person, are you advocating Ukraine seek peace as it's best option right now?
"
"On the one hand Russia using a tactical nuke somewhere might be a blessing, it would end this conflict pretty quick"
You will have to explain how it could be a good idea for Russia to use a tactical nuclear bomb on innocent Ukrainians.
A blessing for who?
Technically we never had a Nuclear war… as where two sides using them. The closest we got was 1962
On the one hand Russia using a tactical nuke somewhere might be a blessing, it would end this conflict pretty quick
Russia using proper chemical and/or biological agents would just as much be seen as an escalation.
And no matter how many times his mouthpieces mention the word nuclear… Putin can't go there. Not only would he lose Chinese backing, Biden has told him it'll be the end of his conventional forces if he does. Just imagine the damage a single squadron of F35s could do to Russia's military capabilities. Then consider what the entire air power of NATO could do. Russia would be bombed back to the stone age.
A nuclear war hasn't been seen in actuality in 80 years; (cold war dick swinging aside) it would be a significant escalation to say the least. Far more than chemical warfare. As I said though, the nuclear bluff's been called a few times now.
But that's still not addressing the fact that what you'd stated I'd written was wholly incorrect.
Wrong again, nothing I've written hints at being 100% pro-Russian. It seems to be all you have.
double post
I read them.
You are 100% pro Russia and no amount of "I want Ukraine to win but" is gonna fool anyone.
The best you can do? Couldn't read the other posts no?
That settles it then.
What is the difference ? all three are weapons of mass destruction.
Putin already used chemical weapons in Ukraine anyway
