Nobody interested in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Page 202 of 203 [ 3237 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 199, 200, 201, 202, 203  Next

carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,029

21 Feb 2025, 2:53 am

Russia can destroy the US in a war and also all NATO nations.

This is why security guarantees is BS it’s why article 5 is a BS bluff

Russia’s objection to NATO is not article 5 but US offensive weapons and military on its border.

The US will not end itself going into a nuclear war to help Ukraine or anyone else, neither will Britain or France.

Millions dead for a stupid bluff that would not happen and that the Russians know is a bluff.

It’s why Trump is trying to back out.

When is someone going to call this obvious reality people are acting like zombies.


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw


BillyTree
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2023
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 876

21 Feb 2025, 7:21 am

carlos55 wrote:
Russia can destroy the US in a war and also all NATO nations.

This is why security guarantees is BS it’s why article 5 is a BS bluff.


Russia is not prepared to commit suicide. That is why article 5 normally works. Now Europe has to speed build it's defence when the US can't be trusted to uphold the deal. If the EU countries focus on it's arms industry instead of buying from the US they can buy weapons from themselves. It's a win-win. EU can muscle-up. Russia's GDP has never been more than 15% of EU:s


_________________
English is not my first language.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,634
Location: Right over your left shoulder

21 Feb 2025, 11:00 am

carlos55 wrote:
Russia can destroy the US in a war and also all NATO nations.


With a bunch of nukes they don't actually maintain and that likely don't work? :scratch:


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
They have a name for Nazis that were only Nazis because of economic anxiety or similar issues. They're called Nazis.


carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,029

21 Feb 2025, 12:39 pm

BillyTree wrote:
carlos55 wrote:
Russia can destroy the US in a war and also all NATO nations.

This is why security guarantees is BS it’s why article 5 is a BS bluff.


Russia is not prepared to commit suicide. That is why article 5 normally works. Now Europe has to speed build it's defence when the US can't be trusted to uphold the deal. If the EU countries focus on it's arms industry instead of buying from the US they can buy weapons from themselves. It's a win-win. EU can muscle-up. Russia's GDP has never been more than 15% of EU:s


The US is not prepared to commit suicide either

It’s the tail wagging the dog. Small countries think they can escalate believing the US has their back but the reality no US president would lose NewYork or Washington in a nuclear strike attacking Russia because they attacked Ukraine.

It just wouldn’t happen which is why no security guarantees can ever be given it’s why none have been given so far

NATO talk tough but they are unable to commit troops or attack Russia over Ukraine in the last 3 years

Ukraine are running out of men so what are they going to do, seems like the US is trying to back down and save face because they know what I’ve mentioned is true.


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw


BillyTree
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2023
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 876

21 Feb 2025, 4:43 pm

carlos55 wrote:
BillyTree wrote:
carlos55 wrote:
Russia can destroy the US in a war and also all NATO nations.

This is why security guarantees is BS it’s why article 5 is a BS bluff.


Russia is not prepared to commit suicide. That is why article 5 normally works. Now Europe has to speed build it's defence when the US can't be trusted to uphold the deal. If the EU countries focus on it's arms industry instead of buying from the US they can buy weapons from themselves. It's a win-win. EU can muscle-up. Russia's GDP has never been more than 15% of EU:s


The US is not prepared to commit suicide either

The US isn't supposed to unless as a response to Russia. Which brings us back to the beginning - Russia is not prepared to commit suicide.


_________________
English is not my first language.


carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,029

21 Feb 2025, 5:22 pm

Yes applied to each other AKA MAD or mutually Assured Destruction.

3rd countries less so the further away even less


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw


kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,415
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

21 Feb 2025, 8:05 pm

carlos55 wrote:
Russia can destroy the US in a war and also all NATO nations.


With the state of Russia's military, why would anyone think that they can destroy the US?

In real life, Russia is probably scared to death of launching a nuclear first strike because they can't know how many of those nuclear weapons would even work? It takes a lot of money and effort to maintain nuclear weapons and there is no sign that they have done much of anything to do so.

In case of a first strike, Russia would want everything to go just perfect. They must be sure of destroying much our ability to retaliate. Russia can't be sure of anything except that if they attack us, they will face massive destruction in our retaliation. They can't even be sure of destroying our land based nuclear weapons, much less those carried on our nuclear submarines.

If Russia were to attack, they would certainly do a lot of damage since many of their weapons would work even if there is some doubt about them being accurate enough to take out our silos. What they can't do is destroy our ability to retaliate and you can be sure that our retaliation would leave them pretty much defenseless.



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,415
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

21 Feb 2025, 8:06 pm

carlos55 wrote:
Yes applied to each other AKA MAD or mutually Assured Destruction.

3rd countries less so the further away even less


MAD was meaningful with the Soviet Union. Russia does not appear to be doing much of anything to maintain their military since then. MAD is dead.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,634
Location: Right over your left shoulder

21 Feb 2025, 9:13 pm

Nukes are supposed to be a weapon of last resort, one you don't ever actually use and only threaten to use.

Think of how corruption and lack of maintenance impacted Russia's conventional forces, now think of how bad that problem could get in a branch of the military that never expects to have to be called into action.

I suspect Russia's nuclear deterrent is largely theoretical. If they can't count on the weapons to work reliably they can't dare to initiate first use.

TL;DR: Russia's nukes are about as scary as my nukes. :nerdy:


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
They have a name for Nazis that were only Nazis because of economic anxiety or similar issues. They're called Nazis.


kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,415
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

21 Feb 2025, 9:54 pm

Russia has only one aircraft carrier now and it was built in the mid 1980s and it is no longer seaworthy. The crew of the carrier have reportedly been reassigned to the army for combat duty in the Ukraine.

So a ship that has been in the process of being overhauled since 2017 and with no crew?



carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,029

22 Feb 2025, 12:09 pm

kokopelli wrote:
carlos55 wrote:
Russia can destroy the US in a war and also all NATO nations.


With the state of Russia's military, why would anyone think that they can destroy the US?

In real life, Russia is probably scared to death of launching a nuclear first strike because they can't know how many of those nuclear weapons would even work? It takes a lot of money and effort to maintain nuclear weapons and there is no sign that they have done much of anything to do so.

In case of a first strike, Russia would want everything to go just perfect. They must be sure of destroying much our ability to retaliate. Russia can't be sure of anything except that if they attack us, they will face massive destruction in our retaliation. They can't even be sure of destroying our land based nuclear weapons, much less those carried on our nuclear submarines.

If Russia were to attack, they would certainly do a lot of damage since many of their weapons would work even if there is some doubt about them being accurate enough to take out our silos. What they can't do is destroy our ability to retaliate and you can be sure that our retaliation would leave them pretty much defenseless.


Russia 2025 is not Russia 1993, their nukes are rather modern, even Trump said so. Their missiles are quite accurate they launched their newest one a couple of months ago and it hit bullseye in the targeted factory from thousands of miles away.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UT70Z7R0dE0

So not so fast with the unverified claims

Russia has 1500 nukes on standby at anyone time, just a few would do unacceptable damage to the US and would ensure China takes over as the dominant superpower while the US would take many years to recover. Even if Russia was destroyed China would take over much of Siberia & be even more powerful, probably the largest country on earth with huge natural resources to back up its economic & population power.

Don't you think the US knows this? you think they want that?

So neither side can afford to go to war with the other which is why security guarantees & article v in europe is BS

Is that how the US behaves to North Korea?, a tiny country with just a handful of crude nukes that can just about hit the US.

The US is terrified of North Korea & wouldn't dare bomb it without being attacked first. All the madness of Kim j Un threatening to destroy the US over the last decade or so and still the US hasn't bombed them, why?

If their scared of N Korea and its several nukes what do you think they`ll be like with Russia & its 1500!


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw


BillyTree
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2023
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 876

22 Feb 2025, 2:00 pm

Europe targets homegrown nuclear deterrent as Trump sides with Putin

Germany’s Merz says Britain and France may need to “share” their nuclear weapons as America can’t be relied on to defend NATO.



Europe's politicians are openly discussing how they could tackle the threat of nuclear attack without American help, in a dramatic sign of the deep crisis engulfing the transatlantic alliance under Donald Trump.

In what would be a huge shift in position, the runaway favorite to be Germany’s next leader said the continent must find new ways to defend itself without the U.S. military underpinning its nuclear protection through NATO.

Friedrich Merz, whom polls suggest is on course to become chancellor after Sunday’s German elections, said his country would need to look beyond the U.S. to Britain and France for nuclear safeguards. Under Trump, he said, America could no longer be relied on.

“We need to have discussions with both the British and the French — the two European nuclear powers — about whether nuclear sharing, or at least nuclear security from the U.K. and France, could also apply to us,” Merz said.

Merz's comment heralds a major strategic shift for Germany, which has long resisted French plans for closer European military cooperation, especially on nuclear defense. Merz's Christian Democrats have traditionally fought to protect relations with the U.S. over calls from Paris for more "strategic autonomy" in the EU.

A change of heart in Germany, fully embraced for the first time by a chancellor in Berlin, would be yet another sign of how Trump’s return to the White House a month ago has blown a hole in the relationship with America that has guaranteed European security since 1945.

On Friday, the president and his team showed no sign of backing down on their hostile rhetoric against Europe — and the leaders of Germany and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy in particular — after a series of attacks in recent days.

With two days until the German federal elections, U.S. Vice President JD Vance even floated pulling American troops out of Germany in what would be a devastating blow to the continent’s security structures.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron will head to Washington next week in an attempt to talk Trump out of siding with Russia and abandoning American commitments to Europe and Ukraine.
NATO in doubt

On Friday, Merz said Germany would now need to look elsewhere for its defense alliances.

“We must prepare for the possibility that Donald Trump will no longer uphold NATO’s mutual defense commitment unconditionally,” Merz said in an interview with German broadcaster ZDF. “That is why, in my view, it is crucial that Europeans make the greatest possible efforts to ensure that we are at least capable of defending the European continent on our own.”

Germany is among the European countries that host U.S. nuclear weapons under NATO's nuclear sharing policy, alongside Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium.

Paris offered to start talks on France finding a way to share its nuclear arsenal with Germany as long ago as 2007, but President Nicolas Sarkozy received a hard "no" from Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Subsequent French attempts at atomic diplomacy also failed to gain traction in Berlin.

Macron made a major attempt to promote the idea of a "Europeanized" French nuclear deterrence in 2020 and an Élysée official said Merz's remarks showed that support was finally growing. "In response to the invitation France sent its partners who want to discuss the significance of the president’s speech in February 2020 and the European dimension of [French] deterrence, we’ve noticed that interest has only increased, in particular since the war in Ukraine,” the official from the presidential office said.

Given the long history of French frustration with Berlin, Merz's comments were welcomed by politicians, officials and analysts in France, Germany and the U.K. Even some of his political opponents acknowledge privately that talking to the British and French about nuclear protection would be a sensible step.

“That a future chancellor, chief of the [Christian Democrats] should say that is a huge thing, I can't think of any equivalent in the post-World War II era, but it's commensurate with the shock that the [American] statements have caused,” said one French official working on military policy, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

“In many ways, what's happening is a bit positive. For decades, under the guise of transatlanticism, we've been losing interest in defense and letting the U.S. decide. It's also an opportunity for Europe to take matters into its own hands.”
'Striking'

Jean-Louis Thiériot, a former deputy defense minister in France, now a lawmaker in the National Assembly’s defense committee, said Merz’s intervention was “striking.”

His words show “how seriously he takes the risk of decoupling from the USA, and thus the end of the American nuclear umbrella,” Thiériot said. “That's a big change from the old days, when we weren't taken very seriously, especially in terms of volume,” he added, referring to past criticism that France doesn’t have as many nuclear warheads as the U.S. or Russia.

“This shows both the seriousness of the situation within the alliance and the seriousness with which French and British deterrence is taken,” he added.

Elsewhere there was skepticism that the French public would support expanding the country’s nuclear obligations to cover Germany in the way Merz apparently imagined, although some observers still saw potential for talks with the U.K.

Merz's comments encouraged politicians in Britain's ruling Labour Party who want Starmer to go further in supporting European allies. Tan Dhesi, a senior lawmaker in Starmer's party, welcomed the debate about how the U.K. can contribute to stronger European defense, including on nuclear deterrence.

"At this critical troubling time for our continent’s defense and security, given Russia’s imperialistic designs, we as a nation must show leadership. That is what our friends and allies are also expecting of us," said Dhesi, the senior Labour MP who chairs the U.K. parliament's defense committee. "Given the potential absence or significant reduction of American presence, this is our time as a nation to step up to the plate and take leadership on defense for the European continent."

As part of Britain’s existing NATO commitments, the U.K. already provides a nuclear umbrella to European allies who are members of NATO, including Germany. The French position is different. Paris insists its so-called vital interests, which nuclear deterrence is designed to protect, have a European dimension, but has not committed to joint NATO nuclear planning in the same way as the British already have.

The British government had no immediate comment on Merz's remarks but any notion of building a new European nuclear defense regime — that would be expected to come good if the U.S. reneges on NATO — is an extremely delicate topic for the U.K., whose nuclear missile program is highly integrated with America's.

“Obviously the level of anxiety in Berlin right now is particularly high,” said Łukasz Kulesa, director of nuclear policy at the Royal United Services Institute defense think-tank in London. “At this point we still don’t have any definite indications that the U.S. will rethink its role in providing extended nuclear deterrence through NATO to the rest of the allies including Germany. So in a sense it’s more about preparation for a potential option.”

One of the many questions will be whether any new European-focused deterrent would still be devised through NATO structures, Kulesa said. “At this point I think it’s worth having a more detailed conversation of how such a U.K.- and French-led nuclear deterrence could be made credible.”

Merz's statement now "needs to be followed up in the long term at political level, on both the French and German sides," said Héloïse Fayet, a researcher at the French Institute for International Relations in Paris, who is an expert on nuclear deterrence.

“It's been on the table for five years, and if we don't talk about it now, when Europe is in danger, we'll never talk about it," she said.


_________________
English is not my first language.


carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,029

22 Feb 2025, 4:32 pm

^ Talk is cheap and anyway its not even Germany pressing the red button, it would be France or UK and they are very far from Ukraine, its just not existential for them.

They are small countries in the far west of Europe any nuclear strike on them would completely destroy them many multiples more than the US, at the risk of dragging the US too since Russia would probably still see any French / British strike as an indirect attack by US, so what the hell if they are going to die, nuke them too would be their attitude.

So the US would be very nervous and do its best to prevent such a chain reaction from happening.

Talking about the French have you seen the junk toy they sent Ukraine, they should be ashamed of themselves expecting soldiers to launch an offensive in this & not expect soldiers to be killed.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/ar ... d-vehicles

The bottom line Ukraine has been invaded they are losing territory everyday but the west has not imposed a no fly zone, has not sent troops, not attacked Russia directly nothing, just sent its old 1970/80s junk.

What makes you think that if their too scared to fight for Ukraine now in its darkest hour they will in the future.

Its just one big scam costing millions of lives.


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw


BillyTree
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2023
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 876

22 Feb 2025, 5:11 pm

^You are really negative in your thinking. To the point that I think the conclusions you come to are un-realistic. As a side note, In my opinion France is a rather large country compared to many - 11% the size of the US.


_________________
English is not my first language.


carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,029

22 Feb 2025, 5:34 pm

Interesting comparison

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7YWdoL9-IY

Looks quite new 21st century manufacturing process cant see a horse & cart anywhere, i think it works

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

What Nuclear war looks like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUEJZ9xYFwA


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw


kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,415
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

23 Feb 2025, 5:00 am

carlos55 wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
carlos55 wrote:
Russia can destroy the US in a war and also all NATO nations.


With the state of Russia's military, why would anyone think that they can destroy the US?

In real life, Russia is probably scared to death of launching a nuclear first strike because they can't know how many of those nuclear weapons would even work? It takes a lot of money and effort to maintain nuclear weapons and there is no sign that they have done much of anything to do so.

In case of a first strike, Russia would want everything to go just perfect. They must be sure of destroying much our ability to retaliate. Russia can't be sure of anything except that if they attack us, they will face massive destruction in our retaliation. They can't even be sure of destroying our land based nuclear weapons, much less those carried on our nuclear submarines.

If Russia were to attack, they would certainly do a lot of damage since many of their weapons would work even if there is some doubt about them being accurate enough to take out our silos. What they can't do is destroy our ability to retaliate and you can be sure that our retaliation would leave them pretty much defenseless.


Russia 2025 is not Russia 1993, their nukes are rather modern, even Trump said so. Their missiles are quite accurate they launched their newest one a couple of months ago and it hit bullseye in the targeted factory from thousands of miles away.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UT70Z7R0dE0

So not so fast with the unverified claims

Russia has 1500 nukes on standby at anyone time, just a few would do unacceptable damage to the US and would ensure China takes over as the dominant superpower while the US would take many years to recover. Even if Russia was destroyed China would take over much of Siberia & be even more powerful, probably the largest country on earth with huge natural resources to back up its economic & population power.

Don't you think the US knows this? you think they want that?

So neither side can afford to go to war with the other which is why security guarantees & article v in europe is BS

Is that how the US behaves to North Korea?, a tiny country with just a handful of crude nukes that can just about hit the US.

The US is terrified of North Korea & wouldn't dare bomb it without being attacked first. All the madness of Kim j Un threatening to destroy the US over the last decade or so and still the US hasn't bombed them, why?

If their scared of N Korea and its several nukes what do you think they`ll be like with Russia & its 1500!


What a bunch of twiddle twaddle!

The US has not bombed Tahiti, either. Is that because we are terrified of Tahiti? Not hardly.

Methinks you are missing the most important point -- the US is not going to bomb North Korea just because the North Koreans are being belligerent little twats. In case of a war, the ones who would really suffer would be South Korea, not the US.