It is everywhere. I don't know what you're watching.
Watching the news recently almost every military advisor has suggested it's almost a certainty. If Ukraine advance at the rate they are. It isn't much currently but they have an advancing advantage where gains are being made into territory named by Russia, while some withdrawal occurs. It's being suggested as quite likely. However it hasn't accounted for much more than any arms funding is working, Russia is losing, that narrative has been repeated from the start of this war. Tactics often play out different on an active battlefield especially as winter sets in. However if what is being suggested, Ukraine retakes all of its territory including the Crimea. Then its highly probable, and much sooner. But they're not certain of that response, most disagree on it, if it happened, what would happen. There is no certainly there. But that's also because speculating on it is pointless. If they suggested involvement by the West, it would provoke the public against it. If Biden said he'd nuke Russia because it nuked Ukraine, and if Nato said they'd nuke Russia, because Russia nuked Ukraine, nobody sane would want that involvement.
In short it is certain if Ukraine retakes most of the present territory under Russian referendum. But it's quite likely it will happen more urgently to that, then tactical nukes could be deployed. But this opinion hasn't accounted for the fact it is absolutely unlikely Ukraine will retake all of its terrority. Even if it takes a part of it, then it won't necessarily draw that kind of strike. It's a possibility. But as mobilisation brings far more into this war, it will potentially continue for longer, before nukes could occur.. Although if a counter offensive blitzed, well who knows.
Ukraine is also fully aware of this danger. Especially if upon surrounding and isolating as example Kherson, or potentially other key ground in the North East. Obviously that clip wants to prompt everything, so his counter offensive will succeed where it in fact could only get nuked. I know I know nuke zee Russia first. Yea nope. Not there yet or likewise.
Speculating on the probability of it, the odds are almost certain nukes will be deployed on the provision Ukraine force a complete Russian withdrawal. The odds Ukraine forces Russian withdrawal are far less.
What's more concerning in this conflict is any risk increases. Not only that risk, but any response to it, hasn't been public. It simply shrugs it off with, it could occur. While emphatically claiming Ukraine will force Russian withdrawal.
I was not able to contain myself for your entire rant. Lost me at some point after Russia is losing and has been for x.
Seriously. You are severely misinformed on reality.
You cannot comprehend the losses and what is even lost.
This is how war is done. To and fro. Russia has by far wiped out way more equipment and manpower and that son is where the reality sinks in.
Russia has completely dominated the battlefield since day one. Each and every inch of retreated land costs Ukraine irreplaceably realize full well they have no remaining war machine. Completely destroyed. The only thing they can do is rely on items shipped to them. From people far away.
Escalating this from the current small time operation with limited deployment capability will result in the final death throes of NATO.
The only people that think Russia will nuke is the talking heads that want to plant a dirty bomb and blame Russia. Lol. Ridiculous.
If Russia nukes. It will nuke the air craft carriers. And maybe Britain and Germany. Possibly France Canada and USA. But not Ukraine.
It's not a rant. I was repeating the News. They've had a number of former military heads suggesting a tactical nuke could be deployed, and it could be deployed if Ukraine forces a major Russian retreat in the territories that had a referendum. Where Ukraine has made massive advances recently. Currently what caused this coverage is the Ukrainian counter offensive potentially surrounding a force of about 15,000 Russians near Kherson. Meanwhile didn't the general just promoted call for nukes as Lyman changed hands. It of course is a major hub and on the main highway going south in the territory of Russian referendum.
The same propaganda as it has from the start of this war's coverage, stated, Russia is losing. Etc. Ukraine must force every Russian out of their country. The West stating it doesn't recognise sham referendums, and it is supporting Ukraine to that conclusion of forcing Russian retreat. The same news through multiple stations is also through various former military personnel, stating, a nuke could otherwise occur.
No, Russia won't lose, I never said it would, and not if it has nukes. It's not planning to lose if it has partially mobilised. It is stll at war and more committed to it, through those referendums.
No, Russia isn't in full control of the battlefield, and if it has mobilised. Yes, war often goes back and forth, and Russa is still technically superior on the battle field.
This war will drag, and as it does, it escalates.
But the point is it remains probable, and if Ukraine forces a major Russian retreat in the territory under referendums. The likelihood of Russia deploying a tactical nuke to defend its sovereignty, defending areas under Russian referendum remains an escalating outcome.
This obviously causes a concern. The West is supporting the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine. It doesn't even recognise the Crimea. But at the same time the risk of nukes becoming deployed remain high if Ukraine causes Russian retreat.
A) Ukraine will be defeated
B) A nuke is deployed because Russia cannot defend its territory.
C) Peace is made.
Take your pick. In either event no wonder he, the topic, wants to pre-empt. Peace means Ukraine has been defeated. Otherwise it has lost more territory. Seriously what?
It is everywhere. I don't know what you're watching.
Watching the news recently almost every military advisor has suggested it's almost a certainty. If Ukraine advance at the rate they are. It isn't much currently but they have an advancing advantage where gains are being made into territory named by Russia, while some withdrawal occurs. It's being suggested as quite likely. However it hasn't accounted for much more than any arms funding is working, Russia is losing, that narrative has been repeated from the start of this war. Tactics often play out different on an active battlefield especially as winter sets in. However if what is being suggested, Ukraine retakes all of its territory including the Crimea. Then its highly probable, and much sooner. But they're not certain of that response, most disagree on it, if it happened, what would happen. There is no certainly there. But that's also because speculating on it is pointless. If they suggested involvement by the West, it would provoke the public against it. If Biden said he'd nuke Russia because it nuked Ukraine, and if Nato said they'd nuke Russia, because Russia nuked Ukraine, nobody sane would want that involvement.
In short it is certain if Ukraine retakes most of the present territory under Russian referendum. But it's quite likely it will happen more urgently to that, then tactical nukes could be deployed. But this opinion hasn't accounted for the fact it is absolutely unlikely Ukraine will retake all of its terrority. Even if it takes a part of it, then it won't necessarily draw that kind of strike. It's a possibility. But as mobilisation brings far more into this war, it will potentially continue for longer, before nukes could occur.. Although if a counter offensive blitzed, well who knows.
Ukraine is also fully aware of this danger. Especially if upon surrounding and isolating as example Kherson, or potentially other key ground in the North East. Obviously that clip wants to prompt everything, so his counter offensive will succeed where it in fact could only get nuked. I know I know nuke zee Russia first. Yea nope. Not there yet or likewise.
Speculating on the probability of it, the odds are almost certain nukes will be deployed on the provision Ukraine force a complete Russian withdrawal. The odds Ukraine forces Russian withdrawal are far less.
What's more concerning in this conflict is any risk increases. Not only that risk, but any response to it, hasn't been public. It simply shrugs it off with, it could occur. While emphatically claiming Ukraine will force Russian withdrawal.
Lol. Smoke another one.
I was not able to contain myself for your entire rant. Lost me at some point after Russia is losing and has been for x.
Seriously. You are severely misinformed on reality. You cannot comprehend the losses and what is even lost.
This is how war is done. To and fro. Russia has by far wiped out way more equipment and manpower and that son is where the reality sinks in.
Russia has completely dominated the battlefield since day one. Each and every inch of retreated land costs Ukraine irreplaceably realize full well they have no remaining war machine. Completely destroyed. The only thing they can do is rely on items shipped to them. From people far away.
Escalating this from the current small time operation with limited deployment capability will result in the final death throes of NATO.
The only people that think Russia will nuke is the talking heads that want to plant a dirty bomb and blame Russia. Lol. Ridiculous.
If Russia nukes. It will nuke the air craft carriers. And maybe Britain and Germany. Possibly France Canada and USA. But not Ukraine.
It's not a rant. I was repeating the News. They've had a number of former military heads suggesting a tactical nuke could be deployed, and it could be deployed if Ukraine forces a major Russian retreat in the territories that had a referendum. Where Ukraine has made massive advances recently. Currently what caused this coverage is the Ukrainian counter offensive potentially surrounding a force of about 15,000 Russians near Kherson. Meanwhile didn't the general just promoted call for nukes as Lyman changed hands. It of course is a major hub and on the main highway going south in the territory of Russian referendum.
The same propaganda as it has from the start of this war's coverage, stated, Russia is losing. Etc. Ukraine must force every Russian out of their country. The West stating it doesn't recognise sham referendums, and it is supporting Ukraine to that conclusion of forcing Russian retreat. The same news through multiple stations is also through various former military personnel, stating, a nuke could otherwise occur.
No, Russia won't lose, I never said it would, and not if it has nukes. It's not planning to lose if it has partially mobilised. It is stll at war and more committed to it, through those referendums.
No, Russia isn't in full control of the battlefield, and if it has mobilised. Yes, war often goes back and forth, and Russa is still technically superior on the battle field.
This war will drag, and as it does, it escalates.
But the point is it remains probable, and if Ukraine forces a major Russian retreat in the territory under referendums. The likelihood of Russia deploying a tactical nuke to defend its sovereignty, defending areas under Russian referendum remains an escalating outcome.
This obviously causes a concern. The West is supporting the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine. It doesn't even recognise the Crimea. But at the same time the risk of nukes becoming deployed remain high if Ukraine causes Russian retreat.
A) Ukraine will be defeated
B) A nuke is deployed because Russia cannot defend its territory.
C) Peace is made.
Take your pick. In either event no wonder he, the topic, wants to pre-empt. Peace means Ukraine has been defeated. Otherwise it has lost more territory. Seriously what?