Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

https://twitter.com/Andrew__Roth/sta...74443390648321

Looks like they're starting to roll out travel bans within Russia. It’s pretty obvious now that the exodus is way more massive than those idiots in the Kremlin ever anticipated.

My guess? Next up will be shutting down the borders entirely.

neonpuma30 said:And you're even better, acting like you get to hand out other people's land and "kids" like candy! Feel free to gift him half your apartment, your backyard, or your entire paycheck then. Since you clearly don't have the authority to decide for everyone else.🙂

It's always easy to act tough when you're playing with someone else's tools.
He's actually asking the Ukrainians if they want to give up pieces of their own land, yet this troll is over here acting like he's the one who should be dividing up foreign countries.

Kimberly Perez82 said:I see quite a few young, hot-headed forum users here—clearly lacking any real-world experience—who think everything can be solved quickly and easily. It’s obvious they don't quite grasp how the world actually functions. During the last nuclear crisis, back during the Cuban Missile Crisis when Soviet ships approached Cuba, the Americans initiated a naval blockade exercise. In that tense moment, it was only the nerves of steel possessed by the responsible officials on the American side that prevented the torpedoing of a Russian frigate that had crossed the line, whether by accident or design. On the flip side, the Russian early warning system misinterpreted those movements as a full-scale nuclear strike from the USA, and a certain Russian official, also possessing incredible composure, decided to defy launch orders to wait and see if it was all just a mistake before triggering a nuclear counterstrike. Fortunately, it turned out to be a false alarm, and the world was saved from nuclear Armageddon. Because of that, you and I are still here today, having the chance to scribble nonsense on this forum.

It feels a bit tragic, honestly, reading these sycophantic statements about needing to march Abrams tanks straight into Times Square and other such idiocies. As if the world were some cartoon. Only through sheer reason and steady nerves on both sides can this be de-escalated, not through bellicose rhetoric. Seriously, I haven't heard a single insightful proposal on how to stop Putin without a nuclear conflict, other than "march the Abrams into Times Square."

I have one proposal.... Return the nuclear weapons to Ukraine, since one of the signatories and guarantors (Russia) has violated the agreement. Then we would have a stalemate, where Russia wouldn't have the guts to fire nukes at a country that possesses them as well.

Gerald Torres84 said:I have one proposal.... Return the nuclear weapons to Ukraine, since one of the signatories and guarantors (Russia) has violated the agreement. Then we would have a stalemate, where Russia wouldn't have the guts to fire nukes at a country that possesses them as well.

Yeah, right. Like Russia is just gonna hand over their nukes now. 😁

Melissa Rivera5 said:Yeah, right. Like Russia is just gonna hand over their nukes now. 😁

Honestly, I feel like if the Ukrainians just announced they had a nuclear weapon, things would change instantly. It might be a total bluff... or maybe it isn't... but even then, I guess the Russians would probably think twice before making another threat...

Sent from my smartphone via Reddit

https://twitter.com/strakovic151/sta...27614368530436

Things are still heating up over in Chechnya, and honestly, people are still super restless about the whole mobilization situation.

Kimberly Perez82 said:I see quite a few young, hot-headed forum users here—clearly lacking any real-world experience—who think everything can be solved quickly and easily. It’s obvious they don't quite grasp how the world actually functions. During the last nuclear crisis, back during the Cuban Missile Crisis when Soviet ships approached Cuba, the Americans initiated a naval blockade exercise. In that tense moment, it was only the nerves of steel possessed by the responsible officials on the American side that prevented the torpedoing of a Russian frigate that had crossed the line, whether by accident or design. On the flip side, the Russian early warning system misinterpreted those movements as a full-scale nuclear strike from the USA, and a certain Russian official, also possessing incredible composure, decided to defy launch orders to wait and see if it was all just a mistake before triggering a nuclear counterstrike. Fortunately, it turned out to be a false alarm, and the world was saved from nuclear Armageddon. Because of that, you and I are still here today, having the chance to scribble nonsense on this forum.

It feels a bit tragic, honestly, reading these sycophantic statements about needing to march Abrams tanks straight into Times Square and other such idiocies. As if the world were some cartoon. Only through sheer reason and steady nerves on both sides can this be de-escalated, not through bellicose rhetoric. Seriously, I haven't heard a single insightful proposal on how to stop Putin without a nuclear conflict, other than "march the Abrams into Times Square."

The idea of "nerves of steel" is a fairy tale. If a conflict actually broke out, a few ships would just get sunk. More Russian ones than American ones, and that would be that.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Yeah, right. Like Russia is just gonna hand over their nukes now. 😁

Just think about it for a second... Who actually said Russia would return them?
The other signatories ought to step up and provide Ukraine with replacement nuclear weapons as a gesture of good faith for what was surrendered
That should solve everything for all our local alarmists

Gerald Torres84 said:Just think about it for a second... Who actually said Russia would return them?
The other signatories ought to step up and provide Ukraine with replacement nuclear weapons as a gesture of good faith for what was surrendered
That should solve everything for all our local alarmists

Replacement and returning stuff aren't really the same thing, right? I mean, supplying UA with nuclear weapons just feels like playing it safe and being a bit of a coward.

mistyharbor13 said:Honestly, I feel like if the Ukrainians just announced they had a nuclear weapon, things would change instantly. It might be a total bluff... or maybe it isn't... but even then, I guess the Russians would probably think twice before making another threat...

Sent from my smartphone via Reddit

That wouldn't really be a bluff so much as just selling smoke and mirrors.

Which is why this feels so much more convincing, even if it is just a strategic move:

Sunday The United States would respond decisively to Any Russian Use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine and that IT Had spelled out to Moscow The "catastrophic consequences" it would face.
"If Russia crosses this line, there will be catastrophic consequences for Russia. The United States will respond decisively," Sullivan told NBC's "Meet the Press" program.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ne-2022-09-25/

brightheron64 said:That wouldn't really be a bluff so much as just selling smoke and mirrors.

Which is why this feels so much more convincing, even if it is just a strategic move:

Sunday The United States would respond decisively to Any Russian Use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine and that IT Had spelled out to Moscow The "catastrophic consequences" it would face.
"If Russia crosses this line, there will be catastrophic consequences for Russia. The United States will respond decisively," Sullivan told NBC's "Meet the Press" program.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ne-2022-09-25/

"Politics is the art of saying nice things while carrying a big stick behind your back" - Dwight Eisenhower

brightheron64 said:That wouldn't really be a bluff so much as just selling smoke and mirrors.

Which is why this feels so much more convincing, even if it is just a strategic move:

Sunday The United States would respond decisively to Any Russian Use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine and that IT Had spelled out to Moscow The "catastrophic consequences" it would face.
"If Russia crosses this line, there will be catastrophic consequences for Russia. The United States will respond decisively," Sullivan told NBC's "Meet the Press" program.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ne-2022-09-25/

Check out Sullivan's interview on ABC. He talks about what happens if the Russians try to dodge an inevitable military defeat by using nuclear bombs, right around the 4:00 mark. And look, unlike the Russians, where everything from their military and foreign policy down to their economy feels like one big bluff and a web of lies, I actually believe that when it comes to Americans, they’ll step up and give them exactly what they deserve.
☕

Melissa Rivera5 said:Replacement and returning stuff aren't really the same thing, right? I mean, supplying UA with nuclear weapons just feels like playing it safe and being a bit of a coward.

In short, yes... Let those two play coward then... Just like all the other nuclear powers have been doing for years.

We don't even need to bring up nuclear weapons to cause a nuclear disaster on Ukrainian soil. A single conventional missile hitting a nuclear plant would trigger an even bigger catastrophe.

Based on what people are saying in the Russian media, they aren't buying Shoigu's claim of 300,000 mobilized troops. Looking at the scale of the calls for service, most are predicting the final number will land somewhere between 700,000 and a million.
This is a turning point. Either Russia ditches this regime, or this drags on for years.
Ukraine is entirely dependent on NATO arms deliveries and EU funding—essentially loans just to keep the state functioning. NATO and the EU can sustain this indefinitely if they choose.
Russia will either retreat into a total defensive posture in these regions using these mobilized troops—slowly losing the war over several years—or they'll try to push forward with these new forces to break Ukraine. In my estimation, if they go for the latter, they'll lose within a year. Then, we'll see a political collapse back home.

Terry Green3 said:We don't even need to bring up nuclear weapons to cause a nuclear disaster on Ukrainian soil. A single conventional missile hitting a nuclear plant would trigger an even bigger catastrophe.

Based on what people are saying in the Russian media, they aren't buying Shoigu's claim of 300,000 mobilized troops. Looking at the scale of the calls for service, most are predicting the final number will land somewhere between 700,000 and a million.
This is a turning point. Either Russia ditches this regime, or this drags on for years.
Ukraine is entirely dependent on NATO arms deliveries and EU funding—essentially loans just to keep the state functioning. NATO and the EU can sustain this indefinitely if they choose.
Russia will either retreat into a total defensive posture in these regions using these mobilized troops—slowly losing the war over several years—or they'll try to push forward with these new forces to break Ukraine. In my estimation, if they go for the latter, they'll lose within a year. Then, we'll see a political collapse back home.

And once most of those people end up dead or permanently maimed, it's just gonna be the start of a massive mess because of the demographic fallout. I guess right now, the best thing Putin can hope for is a Pyrrhic victory. Like, seriously, that's literally his best-case scenario. It's just a tragedy, man.

Gerald Torres84 said:I have one proposal.... Return the nuclear weapons to Ukraine, since one of the signatories and guarantors (Russia) has violated the agreement. Then we would have a stalemate, where Russia wouldn't have the guts to fire nukes at a country that possesses them as well.

There’s a catch here, though, and it applies to more than just those old "Ukrainian" warheads—it goes for the Russian ones too, especially when you look at how transparently (or lack thereof) military budgets are actually handled...

Nuclear weapons aren't just things you manufacture and toss into a warehouse to gather dust. They require massive upkeep, and the most expensive, critical part is the regular replacement and "refreshing" of the actual fission/fusion fuel.

"Today, the Department of Energy is proposing to spend at a least $4.5 billion a year on “stockpile stewardship” activities to maintain the nuclear stockpile for the indefinite future without nuclear testing and without large-scale production of new weapons"

By the way, this is a solid read.
https://www.brookings.edu/the-hidden...ject-findings/

Amy Parker10 said:There’s a catch here, though, and it applies to more than just those old "Ukrainian" warheads—it goes for the Russian ones too, especially when you look at how transparently (or lack thereof) military budgets are actually handled...

Nuclear weapons aren't just things you manufacture and toss into a warehouse to gather dust. They require massive upkeep, and the most expensive, critical part is the regular replacement and "refreshing" of the actual fission/fusion fuel.

"Today, the Department of Energy is proposing to spend at a least $4.5 billion a year on “stockpile stewardship” activities to maintain the nuclear stockpile for the indefinite future without nuclear testing and without large-scale production of new weapons"

By the way, this is a solid read.
https://www.brookings.edu/the-hidden...ject-findings/

Yeah, people have been asking that for a while now (and rightfully so)—like, what is the actual state of Russia's nuclear arsenal? This new stuff they're doing is probably fine, I guess, but how much of it is actually functional? I’d bet money they have enough to cause some massive damage, but maybe not enough to end the world... more like enough to force an unconditional surrender once there's a nuclear response and Moscow, Petrograd, and Vladivostok are just... gone.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Everything you wrote there is just plain wrong.

Well, if you think that's a lie, then by all means, why don't you step up and write down the truth?

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/stat...23216217538560

"Russia will declare war on Ukraine"

Following the " referendum, they’re apparently going to issue an ultimatum to Ukraine demanding their military withdraw from the occupied territories (Lugandonija, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia). If Ukraine refuses, Russia says they'll officially declare war on Ukraine!

So, was this all just some kind of game until now? Honestly, I can't even wrap my head around how delusional these people are. 😵

I suppose any attempt at having a rational conversation with folks like this is probably just a complete waste of time.

It’s basically a mix of tailoring the narrative for the domestic audience while building the legal groundwork to send people to the front lines.