News like this, shows what?
(www.nbcnews.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (53)
sorted by:
No. It has taken. Hahaha. It was all Russian speaking. I didn't think Ukrainian was even a language, rather it was just a dialect of Russian. Until it make belief some other Starwar's language. Kiev as a city goes back thousands of years. Then Zelenskyy came along, and next thing it's called, forget about it. It was all Russian speaking. Until today it reinvented a dialect.
Russia hasn't won shit. It hasn't been decisive. It thought to take territory instead of victory. What territory. No, which. Borders. No. Half. No. This and that. Not that. That has let them arm. Can't take that. Just this. Not that.
By taking territory, it has put itself in a position of conflict. It cannot make peace. It has taken parts of it. So it must beat the rest of the Ukraine, or Ukraine arms, and it continues to get funded. Because Russia hasn't beaten it. It has beaten the Russian speaking parts. Which parts did Russia win?
None is that answer, unless you're Russian. Because it still hasn't beat Ukraine. Maybe then, Russia will get some peace or the territory it desires.
Tell me what was that objective? The other's was simple. Defeating Russia. I cannot say Russia's was beating Ukraine. Not conventionally anyway.
On a higher level of reasoning, one we're not party too, there is an agenda, and it already knows and understands how far this goes. Why it's even played.
Naively you assume it plays. It plays to beat sides not even fighting. Sounds dumb. It could drag them in, anyway. Why not risk it. So it doesn't escalate? If it uses proxies, it's contained. So it isn't direct warfare, and it loses more, from nukes, or whatever. That already signals communication; Demands, concessions. But at the same time emphatically stating it will defeat the other. Although it makes no other attempt to be decisive. Both sides. It simply drags itself out, hoping to win at much larger attrition, if it holds out, the other will ceed ground and lose.
This is happening while what else is happening, globally? Absurdly.
It never used Belarus. It didn't lock the opposing border down. It didn't match offensives with its own. It sat there. It hasn't pressured another flank. Instead it bides its time. Recklessly. The other will never stop. It never fully crushed command structures, coms, and ultilies. Almost no other warfare on this Planet has been fought as archiacally. None. Unless we go back to seige warfare with high walls. Most warfare fights with a purpose to overthrow, crush, disable, destroy. They don't fight for the purpose of causing degradation.
There is another agenda behind this conflict. Where it ironically drags out.
You assume it's some lofty goal of beating Nato. Or defeating Russia. Nope. Not without direct warfare. It hasn't, yet. So why now?
Tell me, it isn't you down voting? Call that faggot out. The nigger troll faggot tranny stalker baits people talking. Purposefully. How do they even know I am online? Mod. A disgusting degenerate. Or are they really that sad they click on my name for new content. How many times a day? I am guessing Mod. A real dumb nigger. What ethnicity? What background? It's why this forum has praise Jesus, bhudda savior crap, Flat Earth every 5 minutes.
OK. All I want to say is that the war, as either a NATO ground -vs- Russia or Ukraine -vs- Russia, is over. It's been over for a long time.
NATO could, maybe, try a non-nuclear air war, but we know that would turn out. Then the NATO air war -vs- Russia would be over too. How many - 50? - advanced NATO fighters and 10? bombers/AWACS shot down in a month, and then it'd be over. They'd make up some bullshit about the wrong pronouns being used, and then they'd stop. And we have seen how Russia responds to attacks: it anhilliates infrastructure.
If NATO tried an air war, Russia would destroy a few military airports (from which the strikes were being launched)
For the last 10 years 'Russia" has been saying that there is not to be any NATO missiles on it's border, or within 1000 km or something. Ukraine is to be neutral. That - along with the 'de-nazification' (which means "de-America-fication") of Ukraine - have always been the clearly stated objectives. Protection of the Russian population in Ukraine was the trigger for the conflict: Attacks "sky rocketed" in the weeks leading up to 22-02-2022.
Not me
Ukraine has too keep itself in the press. It grants it Western aid. If it can convince them. So it makes big dumb splashy headlines to provoke retaliation so it gets funding. These guys. That's why it targets Moscow or the bridge. Instead of actually doing any winning with its missiles. Nope. Give it F16s, it will fly them straight at Russia. Weeeeeeeee. Leopards, yessss.
A news day where Ukraine have made no ground, or had losses, gets turned into; Ukraine struck the bridge, or attacked Moscow. Convincing everybody of how any arms, create legimate targets of continued escalation. Hypocritical, it moves the goalposts, any other bridge, civilian target is a crime of humanity.
They have to keep in the press, convincing people any funding buys headlines, even if it doesn't buy anything else. Other losses magically get turned into babies and children are killed. An attack on an apartment that's been hit 20 times has suddenly killed a baby girl this time. The other 20 times, she was very lucky. Until the tiniest inch of soil amounting to a farmer's field with a barn is a major victory. Ukraine have broken through, they've recaptured a barn, and it still had enough grain to feed all of Africa.
Wait we were talking about a Nato war. Propaganda. It convinces the gullible why they fight. It plays them off. They needed a reason. Seriously. It wasn't Ukrainians. It was Nato.
There is no Nato war. Or there's a much larger global war, and real quick.
Objectively Russia haven't been decisive. What are its objectives. Hold territory. Not that territory. That territory they arm from. But let them arm, so they can kilI them, after they armed. I cannot think of any recent modern warfare conducted, how it's being conducted currently in the Ukraine. Syria perhaps. Damascus. Yemen similar. These never won. They were different, flight.
That's an excuse. What arms do the Baltics have? I agree there was some motivation to protecting the separatists and russians, but there was plenty of other reasons for this conflict, many are geopolitical.
Yeah, terrible Russian decision making in both Syria and at the beginning of this war. It seems like they have wised up now, but probably more obviously terrible decisions to come.
BTW, neither Russia nor China are currently formally communicating with the USA.
Ukraine happened prior to Syria, yes, nearly at the same time, but prior?
In an alternate reality, one that the AI doesn't calculate shit, and try to steal.
What would've happened if Russia marched on Ukraine immediately??
Somehow it doesn't work like how they don't communicate. They say they aren't formally, what's that even mean. Bullshit. Not with that guy. Except all those other guys are communicating.
I am not convinced this conflict hasn't got other agendas. Going back to that previous comment.