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'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 dragged, and 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'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 dragged, and 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'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 Russian 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 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 dragged, and 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 nuke 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 wants to pre-empt. Peace means Ukraine has been defeated. Otherwise it has lost more territory. Seriously what?

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 Russian 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.

The same propaganda as it has from the start of 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 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 dragged and it does it escalates.

But the point is it remains probable. 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 nuke 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 wants to pre-empt. Peace means Ukraine has been defeated. Otherwise it has lost more territory. Seriously what?

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 Russian 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.

The same propaganda as it has from the start of 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 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 dragged and it does it escalates.

But the point is it remains probable. 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 nuke 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 wants to pre-empt. Peace means Ukraine has been defeated. Otherwise it has lost more territory. Seriously what?

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 Russian 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.

The same propaganda as it has from the start of coverage, stated Russia is losing. Etc. Ukraine must force every Russian out of their country. West and it doesn't recognise sham referendums. Supporting Ukraine to that conclusion. It is what they're stating. Suddenly the same new 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 has partially mobilised. It is stll at war and more committed to it those referendums.

No, Russia isn't in full control of the battlefield, if it had mobilised. Yes war often goes back and forth, and Russa is still superior on the battle field.

Ythis war will dragged and escalates..

However, those odds quite remain probable and if Ukrariwne forcesms rearrdr3