Russia and Ukraine

[Deesse23]

At least the US military won't run out of oil.

https://thecradle.co/Article/News/16637

Oil consumption of US military is ca. 3% of total consumption of US.

You are a weapons grade idiot.

[Deesse23]

Bel keeps flinging shit at the wall in the hopes anything will stick

How cute

[The Architect Of Fate]

New video from John Mearsheimer, who has been right about the big things so far.

For people who think that continued escalation is a good idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEshxLHAA0Q

Russians are not a great power, all they (Putin) have is a bluff - like "Russia has the 2nd greatest army in the world" well, that's far far from the truth. Or that they will throw nukes if the world doesn't meet their demands. I mean, what kind of a dumbass do you have to be to take Putin by his word? He is a gangster, if he wants to throw the atomic bomb he'll do it no matter what. But he won't, it's just one of hih many bluffs.

Of course, Putin is all bluster. He wouldn't have the balls to push the button.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Bel keeps flinging shit at the wall in the hopes anything will stick

How cute

That's all Tankies ever do. They Helicopter from one desperate point to the next. Like with a creationist it's a game of disinoformation whack-a-mole.

[Belacqua]

Bizarre headline from the New York Times World today:

The Russian missile attacks that killed at least 19 people across Ukraine on Monday were wide-ranging, but they were not as deadly as they could have been. That has renewed questions over the quality of Russia’s weapons.

Not killing as many people as possible is seen as bad. If your weapons are really top quality, you're just going to kill as many as you can.

Restraint is weakness. The New York Times only respects violence.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Bizarre headline from the New York Times World today:

The Russian missile attacks that killed at least 19 people across Ukraine on Monday were wide-ranging, but they were not as deadly as they could have been. That has renewed questions over the quality of Russia’s weapons.

Not killing as many people as possible is seen as bad. If your weapons are really top quality, you're just going to kill as many as you can.

Restraint is weakness. The New York Times only respects violence.

In the last few days, Russia has fired three quarters of a billion dollars worth of cruise missiles at (largely) undefended civilian targets. Independent sources agree that Ukraine shot down about 60% of those missiles.

So, Russia hardly seems to be practicing ‘restraint’ - they clearly wanted to kill as many people as possible and were unable to do so. How long can they afford to spend 40 million dollars per Ukrainian killed?

Russia is seen as weak because it IS weak.

Boru

[Belacqua]

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on Tuesday that Russia's victory in the Ukraine war would mean "NATO's defeat."

https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Stol...t/58742493

But Ukraine is not a NATO member and NATO is not officially a party to the war, so why would it be a defeat for NATO?

The people who lied to you about Afghanistan and Iraq are telling you this is not a proxy war. And a surprisingly large number of people believe it.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Bizarre headline from the New York Times World today:

The Russian missile attacks that killed at least 19 people across Ukraine on Monday were wide-ranging, but they were not as deadly as they could have been. That has renewed questions over the quality of Russia’s weapons.

Not killing as many people as possible is seen as bad. If your weapons are really top quality, you're just going to kill as many as you can.

Restraint is weakness. The New York Times only respects violence.

Russia has not been acting in a restrained way. They have clearly been aiming for maximum carnage and destruction to demoralize the civilian populace. The concern is their weapon systems have not been working as well as they should as with the rest of their army no matter how much cope you're going to engage in to excuse Russia's total incompetence in this invasion.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on Tuesday that Russia's victory in the Ukraine war would mean "NATO's defeat."

https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Stol...t/58742493

But Ukraine is not a NATO member and NATO is not officially a party to the war, so why would it be a defeat for NATO?

The people who lied to you about Afghanistan and Iraq are telling you this is not a proxy war. And a surprisingly large number of people believe it.

It would be a defeat for NATO because NATO is supporting Ukraine. Not to worry - Russia is massively outgunned by NATO.

Of COURSE it’s a proxy war, why is why Russia will lose - they’re not fighting Ukraine, they’re fighting NATO.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on Tuesday that Russia's victory in the Ukraine war would mean "NATO's defeat."

https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Stol...t/58742493

But Ukraine is not a NATO member and NATO is not officially a party to the war, so why would it be a defeat for NATO?

The people who lied to you about Afghanistan and Iraq are telling you this is not a proxy war. And a surprisingly large number of people believe it.

Yes, it would be a NATO defeat as it would leave NATO countries more vulnerable to Russian aggression and embolden Russia to continue its belligerent policies in direct contrast to NATO's goals .....

Talk about a conspiracy-addled reading of that quote and what's actually surprising is you having applied no critical thinking here before posting this rubbish...