17 ms·

They’ll never take Odessa.

by egfx 4y ago

ugjka 4y ago
I hope so, but remember that chemical and tactical nuclear weapons still haven't been used...
- abudabi123 4y ago
  Would the mirror image of U.S.'s Curtis LeMay in Russia choose to bomb to the West or East of the dividing line in the mind of James Baker when Michael Gorbachev's Soviet Union came to an historic end? And? France takes revenge...
- anonAndOn 4y ago
  The world's largest military is prepared to neutralize all nuclear threats as soon as the first bomb goes off. It's not hyperbole to suggest that much of the western Russian military infrastructure (Army, Navy and AF) would be eliminated within days. Remember, NATO is only giving UA the small weapons and Russia can't even defend against those.
  - apostacy 4y ago
    > The world's largest military is prepared to neutralize all nuclear threats as soon as the first bomb goes off. So in other words, you are rooting for WWIII to start. Does anyone seriously think that NATO would be able to completely neutralize Russia's nuclear capability before they get a single ICBM launched? Warmongers in the Pentagon have been trying to start a "winnable" nuclear war since the 1960s. Perhaps we can minimize casualties to only a few tens of millions on our side, if we are lucky. London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about). Are you so confident that every single missile could be intercepted? Is Ukraine worth the risk? Russia has been preparing for this for a very long time. Even if we shoot down every one of their bombers and nuke every one of their silos, they have a fleet of nuclear submarines waiting to destroy our population centers. Only a complete psychopath would continue to escalate things at this point.
    - mayormcmatt 4y ago
      I don't read their comment as rooting for anything like WWIII: simply stating a fact that an action as stupid as using nukes there will have military consequences from the West.
      - apostacy 4y ago
        > I don't read their comment as rooting for anything like WWIII: simply stating a fact that an action as stupid as using nukes there will have military consequences from the West. So, a nuclear war would be the consequence of NATO nuking Russia as a consequence of Russia nuking Ukraine. How do you read NATO "neutralizing" all nuclear threats, other than a direct attack on Russian nuclear assets? A direct attack on Russian nuclear assets will start WWIII. Unless NATO can neutralize every single Russian nuclear sub all over the world all at once, then how can we prevent Russia from firing nuclear weapons at our cities, or at least our military assets? Russia has more advanced hyper-sonic missiles than NATO, and they have already used them with conventional warheads in Ukraine. We don't even have the capacity to effectively track Russian hyper-sonic missiles. Russia has a clear advantage with nuclear first strikes. And it is profoundly stupid and irresponsible for NATO to risk those consequences.
        avmich 4y ago
        > So, a nuclear war would be the consequence of NATO nuking Russia as a consequence of Russia nuking Ukraine. No, NATO won't nuke Russia. The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry. Russia will still claim it has to use nukes, as it's "too dangerous to the state existence itself". They won't have means, but more importantly, they won't have the will. Of course this is all not clear nor guaranteed. That's the nature of a serious war. But we have what we have, and surely attempting to make the best steps possible.
        lurquer 4y ago
        > The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry. Is that a quote from Napoleon? Or Hitler? I can’t remember, but I know I’ve heard it before.
  - blub 4y ago
    Yours reads like a comment that even the NATO propaganda department would be too embarrassed to attach their name to. In a nuclear conflict between the US and Russia, Europe would be wiped out. UK, France, Germany, Italy and other countries hosting nuclear weapons will be certainly annihilated. Poland, the Baltics, Finland, Romania, etc will probably be nuked out of spite and whatever’s left will wither under a radioactive cloud. Even the US “win” means being hit by hundreds of nuclear weapons. Those claiming that nuclear war can be won are just suicidal in a very contorted way.
squishy47 4y ago
Agreed, i'd be surprised if they manage to hold on of any of the land they've taken so far. never mind take Odessa.

They’ll never take Odessa.

by egfx 4y ago

They’ll never take Odessa.

ugjka 4y ago

I hope so, but remember that chemical and tactical nuclear weapons still haven't been used...

abudabi123 4y ago
Would the mirror image of U.S.'s Curtis LeMay in Russia choose to bomb to the West or East of the dividing line in the mind of James Baker when Michael Gorbachev's Soviet Union came to an historic end? And? France takes revenge...
anonAndOn 4y ago
The world's largest military is prepared to neutralize all nuclear threats as soon as the first bomb goes off. It's not hyperbole to suggest that much of the western Russian military infrastructure (Army, Navy and AF) would be eliminated within days. Remember, NATO is only giving UA the small weapons and Russia can't even defend against those.
- apostacy 4y ago
  > The world's largest military is prepared to neutralize all nuclear threats as soon as the first bomb goes off. So in other words, you are rooting for WWIII to start. Does anyone seriously think that NATO would be able to completely neutralize Russia's nuclear capability before they get a single ICBM launched? Warmongers in the Pentagon have been trying to start a "winnable" nuclear war since the 1960s. Perhaps we can minimize casualties to only a few tens of millions on our side, if we are lucky. London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about). Are you so confident that every single missile could be intercepted? Is Ukraine worth the risk? Russia has been preparing for this for a very long time. Even if we shoot down every one of their bombers and nuke every one of their silos, they have a fleet of nuclear submarines waiting to destroy our population centers. Only a complete psychopath would continue to escalate things at this point.
  - mayormcmatt 4y ago
    I don't read their comment as rooting for anything like WWIII: simply stating a fact that an action as stupid as using nukes there will have military consequences from the West.
    - apostacy 4y ago
      > I don't read their comment as rooting for anything like WWIII: simply stating a fact that an action as stupid as using nukes there will have military consequences from the West. So, a nuclear war would be the consequence of NATO nuking Russia as a consequence of Russia nuking Ukraine. How do you read NATO "neutralizing" all nuclear threats, other than a direct attack on Russian nuclear assets? A direct attack on Russian nuclear assets will start WWIII. Unless NATO can neutralize every single Russian nuclear sub all over the world all at once, then how can we prevent Russia from firing nuclear weapons at our cities, or at least our military assets? Russia has more advanced hyper-sonic missiles than NATO, and they have already used them with conventional warheads in Ukraine. We don't even have the capacity to effectively track Russian hyper-sonic missiles. Russia has a clear advantage with nuclear first strikes. And it is profoundly stupid and irresponsible for NATO to risk those consequences.
      - avmich 4y ago
        > So, a nuclear war would be the consequence of NATO nuking Russia as a consequence of Russia nuking Ukraine. No, NATO won't nuke Russia. The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry. Russia will still claim it has to use nukes, as it's "too dangerous to the state existence itself". They won't have means, but more importantly, they won't have the will. Of course this is all not clear nor guaranteed. That's the nature of a serious war. But we have what we have, and surely attempting to make the best steps possible.
        lurquer 4y ago
        > The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry. Is that a quote from Napoleon? Or Hitler? I can’t remember, but I know I’ve heard it before.
- blub 4y ago
  Yours reads like a comment that even the NATO propaganda department would be too embarrassed to attach their name to. In a nuclear conflict between the US and Russia, Europe would be wiped out. UK, France, Germany, Italy and other countries hosting nuclear weapons will be certainly annihilated. Poland, the Baltics, Finland, Romania, etc will probably be nuked out of spite and whatever’s left will wither under a radioactive cloud. Even the US “win” means being hit by hundreds of nuclear weapons. Those claiming that nuclear war can be won are just suicidal in a very contorted way.

squishy47 4y ago

Agreed, i'd be surprised if they manage to hold on of any of the land they've taken so far. never mind take Odessa.