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:
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.