RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
They will likely sell you out in the end, after all the time and effort you've put in to this war.
Maybe you should go over and lead a 'people's war.'
War propaganda, 'Realists' and neocons, and the denigration of the war sceptics
- Thread starter RD2003
- Start date
Maybe you should go over and lead a 'people's war.'
No idea what points of mine you're arguing against now but it's none that I've made.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
I just have a feeling that you're a knocking bet for Commander of the Poseurs' Division.
(You haven't made any points btw.)
Which means you've ran out of steam?
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Seems they've realised their already obvious and ill-conceived proxy war has been rumbled.
In a call with top defense and intelligence officials, Biden called for fewer leaks about US intelligence sharing with Ukraine, NBC News reports:
The Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh wrote today that confirmation of the information sharing around the Moskva is a “a fresh demonstration of the close intelligence support Kyiv is receiving from Washington”:
In a call with top defense and intelligence officials, Biden called for fewer leaks about US intelligence sharing with Ukraine, NBC News reports:
US officials previously confirmed claims that American intelligence helped Ukrainian forces, aiding both in the killing Russian generals and the location of the Russian warship Moskva, which was sunk last month.
The Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh wrote today that confirmation of the information sharing around the Moskva is a “a fresh demonstration of the close intelligence support Kyiv is receiving from Washington”:
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
At last, a liberal view that makes sense:
responsiblestatecraft.org
'Two of Lloyd Austin’s remarks are especially worth examining in some detail. The first is that weakening Russia is necessary in order to prevent it repeating its invasion of Ukraine elsewhere. This statement is either meaningless, hypocritical, or both. There is no sign that Russia wants to or indeed could invade any other countries. As far as an attack on NATO is concerned, the miserable performance of the Russian military in Ukraine should have made absolutely clear that this is a fatuous chimera. If Russia cannot capture cities less than 20 miles from Russia’s own border, the idea of an attack on NATO is ludicrous.'
'During the Cold War, no U.S. president ever forgot that Washington and Moscow between them have the ability to destroy human civilization and even put an end to the human race. For this reason, first the Truman and then the Eisenhower administration adopted the strategy of “containing” the Soviet Union in Europe, and not trying to “roll back” Soviet power through armed support for anti-Soviet insurgencies in eastern Europe.
Our leaders of today should remember this. They should also remember that where both sides engaged in proxy warfare outside Europe, the consequences were disastrous for themselves and still more disastrous for the wretched people on the ground who became the pawns of these great power agendas. Have we really learned nothing from history?'
The horrible dangers of pushing a US proxy war in Ukraine
If there is indeed a shift in strategy to another level of confrontation with Russia, we need to know what we're getting into.
responsiblestatecraft.org
'Two of Lloyd Austin’s remarks are especially worth examining in some detail. The first is that weakening Russia is necessary in order to prevent it repeating its invasion of Ukraine elsewhere. This statement is either meaningless, hypocritical, or both. There is no sign that Russia wants to or indeed could invade any other countries. As far as an attack on NATO is concerned, the miserable performance of the Russian military in Ukraine should have made absolutely clear that this is a fatuous chimera. If Russia cannot capture cities less than 20 miles from Russia’s own border, the idea of an attack on NATO is ludicrous.'
'During the Cold War, no U.S. president ever forgot that Washington and Moscow between them have the ability to destroy human civilization and even put an end to the human race. For this reason, first the Truman and then the Eisenhower administration adopted the strategy of “containing” the Soviet Union in Europe, and not trying to “roll back” Soviet power through armed support for anti-Soviet insurgencies in eastern Europe.
Our leaders of today should remember this. They should also remember that where both sides engaged in proxy warfare outside Europe, the consequences were disastrous for themselves and still more disastrous for the wretched people on the ground who became the pawns of these great power agendas. Have we really learned nothing from history?'
Dystopiary
putting up a hook to hang my hopes upon
Well this guy hasn't got some weird agenda has he, no sirreee.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Why, when it's a relevant question, asked in the early days of the war when it was by no means clear that Russia might be doing such things deliberately, and doesn't invalidate anything at all that he says in the article I linked to?
Last edited:
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
The US didn't conceive this war. Russia did when they crossed the border into Ukraine, a key fact you seem to keep forgetting. It really is disgusting to see you keep trying to downplay the role of the side that was not only the clear aggressor in this conflict, but which also acts like civilians and maternity hospitals are legitimate targets.
Apart from all the "Make Russia Great Again" bullshit that the liberal is either unaware of, or has chosen to ignore. Russia have burned a lot of men and material in this foolish Ukraine invasion, but the idea that Russia would never do such a thing to another neighbour after rebuilding their strength is not borne out by Russia's recent historical behaviour.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
The US didn't conceive the war. It has, along with its allies, clearly conceived the proxy war which is being fought now.
I have made no defence of what Russia is doing.
Nobody knows what a hypothetical strong Russia would do, but Russia's recent behaviour is in response to NATO proposing to expand into Georgia and Ukraine. Once again-it doesn't matter in practice whether you, I, or anybody else considers this a legitimate concern when Russia clearly does.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
It's been public knowledge where Ukraine was getting their assistance from since at least 2014, has it not? Hardly anything being rumbled there, I'd say.
You are still talking as if sovereign countries like Georgia and Ukraine are mere pawns with no agency whatsoever. "NATO proposing to expand" - do the countries in question get a say in signing up for NATO, or are they being forced against their will? I'd say you're displaying an attitude that's very similar to that of Russian elites. Or are security concerns only legitimate if they come from the Russian government?
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Ukrainian or Georgian 'agency' didn't count for shit in practice. I have merely pointed this out, and made no comment on the rights and wrongs of it.
You'd do better to stick to what the poster you're addressing actually says than what you, in your self-righteousness, would want them to have said.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
The CIA recognises the dangers of escalation.
The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, William Burns, has warned that Vladimir Putin is “doubling down” on the war in Ukraine, despite the global condemnation he has faced.
Speaking at a Financial Times event in Washington, Burns said:
The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, William Burns, has warned that Vladimir Putin is “doubling down” on the war in Ukraine, despite the global condemnation he has faced.
Speaking at a Financial Times event in Washington, Burns said:
Burns also expressed concern that the recent reports about the intelligence that the US has shared with Ukraine are “irresponsible” and “very risky,” as they could further enflame tensions with Russia.
He can’t even take Ukraine so that’s put paid to Russia being a great power, let alone a superpower.
So what next? Nukes? Will anyone carry out those orders? The west also have nukes and can obliterate Russia.
rubbershoes
not the only raver in the village
I haven't been keeping up with the thread. Has there been any condemnation of Putin from you yet?
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
How obvious can I make it that I'm waiting for the moment my pronouncement will have maximum impact on Putin?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
That time passed a long time ago
rubbershoes
not the only raver in the village
That's just sidestepping the issue
Supine
Newt Member
If enough random sentences get typed they might do this at some point.
Meanwhile ukraine defend what is theirs, with a little help from their friends.
rubbershoes
not the only raver in the village
So you haven't been criticising anyone. Am I right?
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Everyone else is clear on the channels of communication between urban and the upper echelons of the Russian government. You must be the only one remaining ignorant.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Ukraine war: Could Russia use tactical nuclear weapons?
President Putin has been stoking fears that he will use tactical nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war.
www.bbc.co.uk
'Limited' Tactical Nuclear Weapons Would Be Catastrophic
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows the limits of nuclear deterrence
'This is not the first time Putin has rattled the nuclear saber. He also did so in 2014 during Russia’s invasion of Crimea, when Russian leaders talked openly about putting nuclear weapons on alert. In 2015, Russia threatened Danish warships with nuclear weapons if Denmark joined NATO’s missile defense system. Putin likes to wave about his nuclear weapons as a reminder to the West (and perhaps to himself) that Russia is still a great power. In the current crisis, Putin clearly wants the US and NATO to know that if the West were to intervene with military force on behalf of Ukraine, he might reach for his so-called tactical (or “nonstrategic”) nuclear weapons.
In the world of nuclear weapons, tactical means an exceedingly large amount of explosive energy and strategic means even larger. Most nuclear weapons today are variable-yield, or “dial-a-yield,” providing a set amount of explosive energy that can range from fractions of a kiloton to multiples of a megaton. (For example, the U.S.’s newest version of its B61 nuclear bomb can release 0.3, 1.5, 10 or 50 kilotons of explosive energy. In comparison, the Hiroshima bomb was about 15 kilotons.) Russia has about 4,500 nuclear warheads in its arsenal. Of these, the ones of largest yield—the “strategic” weapons—are deployed on submarines, bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
But Russia also possesses some 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons kept in storage facilities throughout the country, developed to be used against troops and installations in a small area or in a limited engagement. Such weapons can be launched on the same short-range missiles Russia is currently using to bombard Ukraine, such as its Iskander ballistic missile, which has a range of about 500 kilometers. And these are not the only tactical weapons that could be deployed; the United States has about 100 nuclear “gravity bombs” (with less sophisticated guidance) stationed around Europe.
Tactical nuclear weapons exist because each side fears it would be deterred from using its big city-razing weapons by their very destructiveness. By making nuclear weapons smaller and the targeting more precise, their use becomes more thinkable. Paradoxically, while this makes deterrence threats more credible, it also makes the arms more tempting to use first, rather than simply in retaliation.
No one should imagine, however, that it makes sense to use a tactical nuclear weapon. A thermonuclear explosion of any size possesses overwhelming destructive power. Even a “small-yield” nuclear weapon (0.3 kilotons) would produce damage far beyond that of a conventional explosive. (For a graphic depiction, the interactive site NUKEMAP, created by nuclear historian Alexander Wellerstein, allows you to simulate the effects of a nuclear explosion of any size anywhere on the planet.) It would also cause all the horrors of Hiroshima, albeit on a smaller scale. A tactical nuclear weapon would produce a fireball, shock waves, and deadly radiation that would cause long-term health damage in survivors. Radioactive fallout would contaminate air, soil, water and the food supply (Ukrainians are already familiar with this kind of outcome because of the disastrous meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in 1986).
No one knows if using a tactical nuclear weapon would trigger full-scale nuclear war. Nevertheless, the risk of escalation is very real. Those on the receiving end of a nuclear strike are not likely to ask whether it was tactical or strategic. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on February 6, 2018, then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated “I do not think there is any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game changer.” Russian leaders have made clear that they would view any nuclear attack as the start of an all-out nuclear war.'
Last edited:
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Focus initially on Pakistan and India, but Ukraine is a lot closer, for what it matters...
Also provides a fleeting reminder of how we were 'led' during the Cold War by more mature and substantial individuals.
www.nature.com
Also provides a fleeting reminder of how we were 'led' during the Cold War by more mature and substantial individuals.
How a small nuclear war would transform the entire planet
As geopolitical tensions rise in nuclear-armed states, scientists are modelling the global impact of nuclear war.
www.nature.com
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
US Intelligence assesses possible routes to escalation, including nuclear.
www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/10/putin-nuclear-weapons-us-intelligence-avril-haines
www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/10/putin-nuclear-weapons-us-intelligence-avril-haines
Last edited:
Best that him and his crooked associates are just handed whatever it is they want then.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
What has that got to do with an account in a major news outlet of a report by the US Director of National Intelligence?
Similar threads
- Poll
