6 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.
  - 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.
  - 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.
    - confidantlake 4y ago
      So you are blaming "warmongers in the Pentagon" for Russia theoretically dropping the first nuke? Wouldn't warmongers in the Kremlin be the responsible party?
      - foverzar 4y ago
        Why do you imply that it is a some discrete "just for lulz" action, rather than a continued mutual process?
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > 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? If the world lets Russia get away with using a nuke with no serious repercussions it will likely lead to a serious increase in nuclear proliferation and destabilise the world. Because if Russia can nuke Ukraine with no consequences why can’t other nuclear powers? Because of this the best and most stabilising thing that can happen if Russia uses a nuke is a devastating and overwhelming response that shows the world what happens if you nuke another country.
      - foverzar 4y ago
        It's a bit too late for that, there is already a precedent set. > Because of this the best and most stabilising thing that can happen if Russia uses a nuke is a devastating and overwhelming response that shows the world what happens if you nuke another country. Specifically what, lol? How can an "devastating and overwhelming response" on a nuclear state be anything near "the best and most stabilising thing"? It is as if you imagine that Russia would just sit there and do nothing as you devastate and "overwhelm" it. Srsly? It weirds me out how some people are still so hard on "watchagonnado" politics, despite everything that had happened last half a year. Did everyone already forget all that previous "wathcagonnado", that had now escalated to hundreds of thousands casualties, millions refugees and almost total leveling of half of Ukraine?
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.
- 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.
- 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.
  - confidantlake 4y ago
    So you are blaming "warmongers in the Pentagon" for Russia theoretically dropping the first nuke? Wouldn't warmongers in the Kremlin be the responsible party?
    - foverzar 4y ago
      Why do you imply that it is a some discrete "just for lulz" action, rather than a continued mutual process?
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > 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? If the world lets Russia get away with using a nuke with no serious repercussions it will likely lead to a serious increase in nuclear proliferation and destabilise the world. Because if Russia can nuke Ukraine with no consequences why can’t other nuclear powers? Because of this the best and most stabilising thing that can happen if Russia uses a nuke is a devastating and overwhelming response that shows the world what happens if you nuke another country.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      It's a bit too late for that, there is already a precedent set. > Because of this the best and most stabilising thing that can happen if Russia uses a nuke is a devastating and overwhelming response that shows the world what happens if you nuke another country. Specifically what, lol? How can an "devastating and overwhelming response" on a nuclear state be anything near "the best and most stabilising thing"? It is as if you imagine that Russia would just sit there and do nothing as you devastate and "overwhelm" it. Srsly? It weirds me out how some people are still so hard on "watchagonnado" politics, despite everything that had happened last half a year. Did everyone already forget all that previous "wathcagonnado", that had now escalated to hundreds of thousands casualties, millions refugees and almost total leveling of half of Ukraine?

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.