No one is suggesting an invasion of Russia. The issue is whether we stand up to a terrorist who's wantonly engaging in war crimes. The people of Ukraine cannot be left to die under the heels of Putin's goons.Give me a list of those countries that have successfully invaded Russia.
Give me a list of those countries that have successfully invaded Russia.
I think that all of the above did invade Russia but were eventually kicked out /displaced/liberated by the Russian people. If I am wrong I hope you will correct me.Off the top of my head?
The German Empire.
The Kingdom of Sweden.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
The Duchy of Poland.
The Mongol Empire.
I think that all of the above did invade Russia but were eventually kicked out /displaced/liberated by the Russian people. If I am wrong I hope you will correct me.
This is an absurd issue/comment. No one has any interest in taking over or occupying Russia. This is simply about stopping their homicidal aggression against innocent neighbors.I think that all of the above did invade Russia but were eventually kicked out /displaced/liberated by the Russian people. If I am wrong I hope you will correct me.
Well I don't think the fly zone decision defines this mess in terns of Neville Chamberlain's response to Hitler.So unless there's some other off ramp I see nukes (probably tactical ones) being used in the very near future. The world simply cannot sit by idly while Putin slaughters the Ukrainian people while committing one after another war crimes.
He just said today that he would consider any nation imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine to be an "actively involved combatant."
Bottom line - - this is a Neville Chamberlain/Winston Churchill moment.
Do we appease or do we say we're not going to allow this; you can do what you want, but if you make the wrong choice, we'll vaporize you.
Read the OP again. Does Putin really know he'd lose a conventional war? History is on his side. Just ask Napoleon and Hitler.This is an absurd issue/comment. No one has any interest in taking over or occupying Russia. This is simply about stopping their homicidal aggression against innocent neighbors.
His conventional forces wouldn't stand a chance against those of the US, no less the assembled military might of the US and NATO. His military can't even make progress against a country like Ukraine.Read the OP again. Does Putin really know he'd lose a conventional war? History is on his side. Just ask Napoleon and Hitler.
Why can't the world sit by? Were you outraged over the war crimes and human rights violations that Ukraine was doing before all this happened? If the world had stood by and just let the second rate countries of Austria-Hungary and Serbia it would've been ancient history. We wouldn't have had WWI, which gave us communist Russia, WWII, communist China, the Cold War, 9/11, ect. ect. ect.So unless there's some other off ramp I see nukes (probably tactical ones) being used in the very near future. The world simply cannot sit by idly while Putin slaughters the Ukrainian people while committing one after another war crimes.
Umm...a no-fly zone would have to be imposed by shooting down Russian aircraft so it would be.He just said today that he would consider any nation imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine to be an "actively involved combatant."
This is an Archduke Fanz Ferdinand moment.Bottom line - - this is a Neville Chamberlain/Winston Churchill moment.
Do we appease or do we say we're not going to allow this; you can do what you want, but if you make the wrong choice, we'll vaporize you.
Except Russia is the aggressor here. Defending Russia from attack by Napoleon and Hitler is not the same thing as Russia being the aggressor. Napoleon and Hitler were ground to dust by the harsh Russian winter. If not for that, they would be speaking French or German in Moscow.Read the OP again. Does Putin really know he'd lose a conventional war? History is on his side. Just ask Napoleon and Hitler.
Because Putin will not stop at the border of Ukraine. However there is no need for a US or NATO led no fly zone. Putin has already lost. He just does not know it yet.Why can't the world sit by? Were you outraged over the war crimes and human rights violations that Ukraine was doing before all this happened? If the world had stood by and just let the second rate countries of Austria-Hungary and Serbia it would've been ancient history. We wouldn't have had WWI, which gave us communist Russia, WWII, communist China, the Cold War, 9/11, ect. ect. ect.
"While Felgenhauer agreed with Golt’s assessment of the US’s military advantage, he warned that open warfare often comes down to far more than the inventories that each side of the conflict can call upon.His conventional forces wouldn't stand a chance against those of the US, no less the assembled military might of the US and NATO. His military can't even make progress against a country like Ukraine.
Russian and US military firepower: A comparison
The latest data has recognised the countries' militaries as two of the most powerful in the world.www.forces.net
So unless there's some other off ramp I see nukes (probably tactical ones) being used in the very near future. The world simply cannot sit by idly while Putin slaughters the Ukrainian people while committing one after another war crimes.
He just said today that he would consider any nation imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine to be an "actively involved combatant."
Bottom line - - this is a Neville Chamberlain/Winston Churchill moment.
Do we appease or do we say we're not going to allow this; you can do what you want, but if you make the wrong choice, we'll vaporize you.
My opinion: Putin doesn't need to use nukes to accomplish his military goals in Ukraine. He has overwhelming advantage and the west has stories of heroism as people are slaughtered.So unless there's some other off ramp I see nukes (probably tactical ones) being used in the very near future. The world simply cannot sit by idly while Putin slaughters the Ukrainian people while committing one after another war crimes.
He just said today that he would consider any nation imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine to be an "actively involved combatant."
Bottom line - - this is a Neville Chamberlain/Winston Churchill moment.
Do we appease or do we say we're not going to allow this; you can do what you want, but if you make the wrong choice, we'll vaporize you.
The problem isn’t that he considers a no fly zone “actively involved combat.” You don’t need a psychopath like Putin to get to that conclusion, and such combat falls into the No-No’s Of The Old Rules Of The Cold War department.So unless there's some other off ramp I see nukes (probably tactical ones) being used in the very near future. The world simply cannot sit by idly while Putin slaughters the Ukrainian people while committing one after another war crimes.
He just said today that he would consider any nation imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine to be an "actively involved combatant."
Bottom line - - this is a Neville Chamberlain/Winston Churchill moment.
Do we appease or do we say we're not going to allow this; you can do what you want, but if you make the wrong choice, we'll vaporize you.
Unfortunately for the people of Ukraine, they are going to suffer mightily from Putin's military goals. Unfortunately for Putin and Russia, he cannot accomplish his strategic goals and the Russian people will suffer mightily for Putin's transgressions.My opinion: Putin doesn't need to use nukes to accomplish his military goals in Ukraine. He has overwhelming advantage and the west has stories of heroism as people are slaughtered.
The west does not have reason to use nuclear weapons, as it could do anything it wanted militarily with conventional forces; the pont is they don't want to get into a war escalating to nuclear weapons.
So all of this leaves one very dangerous risk of nuclear weapons. The west is determined to pressure Putin so much that his life is threatened, which for him means not staying in office. And he has only one tool to use to demand the west end that pressure: nuclear blackmail.
The details of how it happens aren't as important; I've suggested it could start with one bomb in an unpopulated area; it could be a threat. But we're in world-threatening danger as we try to threaten a cornered animal who has nuclear weapons and everything says no compunctions about using them as leverage. We're making him feel he has little to lose.
That is irrelevant for the situation today.Give me a list of those countries that have successfully invaded Russia.
Afghanistan sent Russia home ......... with their persistent and covert military style.Give me a list of those countries that have successfully invaded Russia.
"those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it".That is irrelevant for the situation today.
1. Why would he go beyond Ukraine, especially if he has already lost there, by your own words?Because Putin will not stop at the border of Ukraine. However there is no need for a US or NATO led no fly zone. Putin has already lost. He just does not know it yet.
C'mon, that's not even close to a successful invasion of Russia.Afghanistan sent Russia home ......... with their persistent and covert military style.
Yeah...100% agree here. Modern technology is such that Russia wouldn't be able to hide and let winter do it's just like it could in the past. However, even if we accept that it would, I think that if nukes are off the table, the US would be able to wrap up Russia in as quick of time as the warmer months and not have to even deal with the winter.That is irrelevant for the situation today.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?