Russian Growth
(media.scored.co)
Comments (18)
sorted by:
Not surprising if the reports of Ukraine shelling those areas are accurate.
Yes, that would make sense.
However, if they are not true, then it could just be a gamed referendum.
War time numbers are about as accurate as a broken clock.
It's not the first vote.dont forget that area has always been Russian despite what democrats and billionaires say
And how would I remember that exactly? I don't have first hand knowledge...I have heard such things from online dubious sources that I cannot verify myself without stepping out of my expertise and leaning on some native Russian historians....without previous political reasons....somehow find a guy who didn't know about the conflict and ask them for their untainted information.
And then...still trust him.
--
Billionaires say the opposite sure. But Russian billionaires say other stuff....
Plenty of people have been analysing this for a long time. There is no question of the realities.
John here is a pol sci prof and has some straight goods. If you had history you would know. He exposes some for you.
Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer - YouTube m.youtube.com › watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Larry Johnson has a good grasp on the sitrep. Former CIA analyst.
sonar21.com
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Hey could be legitimate representation, just that all options are.open
But they won't be recognised, by the West, so it means Ukraine can attack them, and because Ukraine is attacking them, the West will continue to arm it.
It changes nothing as far as the present conflict is concerned.
No it changes quite a bit. It means they're a part of Russia, and therefore Russia sets the precedence to defend them by all means necessary.
What happens if a nuke goes off in their defense? A very fine point of debate. Not much debate with nukes. But? Would the West engage into a direct war with Russia? It proves they were always going too. Russia simply had to lose. Lose Crimea, and any other separatist territory seeking Russian protection.
It wouldn't be such an easy international response? But perhaps, otherwise.
Dangerous escalation ahead. Unless another truce foments. But as it stands on not recognising them, this war will only drag for much longer, escalating.
Russia now has the tools it needs to respond to any military threat to the land.
That's not the point. The point is it is under immediate attack, inside territories, it has just offered protections.
What does it mean. A nuclear power is under direct attack.
How does it respond. As of yet conventionally. Pressed further, let's suggest a territory now a part of Russia is completely invaded, the population and Russian soldiers are being killed in significant numbers, what happens. Specifically it remains an escalating question?
imaginary lines. I would suggest that Russia has published clear doctrine regarding the use of nuclear weapons. So we can simply refer to that.
Russia is in the superior position and will continue to remain in the top military spot in the entire conflict. I have no doubt of this. The west simply cannot project anything over there at all, just junk.
This is not a troop war, there is no concern for large vast troop movements. So far we have not really seen anything yet, the nature of this conflict belongs to the ranged weapons.
No it hasn't, to be fair. It hasn't in this conflict. There is only escalation. Also that doctorine has changed in this conflict to certain extents and reasons.
These new territories are now a part of Russian soil. Except there is a conflict. It hasn't suddenly decreased because Russia has gained a larger protectorate, shouting ohhh it has the nukes. Wait what. Ukraine wants its land back, and is still fighting for it. It has technically escalated. Ukraine might fight even harder for it. It will seek even more arms to get it.
So dumbass this conflict will escalate. As it does the probability of nukes increases.
Not whether or not, Russia remains in conflict, it is and it hasn't stopped. It has escalated. Russia has mobilised. Not what capability Russia has. It was obvious Russia has nukes, and has acquired parts of the former Ukraine. It wasn't that concern. I don't care much. Not Ukrainian. Not Russian. Except I question the larger odds of nukes. They remain probable.
There is a very funny video out there of a ballot counter counting every vote "yes" without even looking at it.
I am surprised that the outcome wasn't 125%
There was obvious vote rigging, but also obvious interference by both Ukraine and Russia and NATO. But the results are obvious. Russia will annex those territories and what is NATO going to do about it?
ZIP. ZILCH. NADA. There is nothing they can do about it besides starting world war III and in their eyes Russia has to be the one to directly engage their forces first.
I think it is possible we can see some continued escalation from the west, they seem to be pretty hell bent on self destruction.
nato will continue to be clowned in this affair, once the missile war begins.
The choice to join suggested implies the choice to ignore being partial within perceivable whole.