What's he going to do, fire more missiles into Ukraine? That's what he's been doing for months. He should hurry up because the Ukrainian air defenses are getting stronger every day.
Ukraine updates
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
- Status
Yes, but you've avoided the tricky part - after you destroy them, how do you avoid fallout over your territory (or that of allies or otherwise innocent bystanders)? No system that guarantees against that result. If there were, nuclear weapons wouldn't be considered so dangerous.
Seems to me that all that putting your nukes on your border does is discourages your enemies from detonating your warheads in place. Many other forms of sabotage other than detonation, however.
I am no nuclear scientist, but I dont think a nuke explodes when struck by a missile. I would also think for nukes they would use exoatmospheric defences. Again unlikely any nukes will be launched in the first place.
It doesn't, but the plutonium payload does disperse and creates a radiation hazard.
They accomplished that in 2014, though.
Or is your argument that since Georgia has a population that is much more pro-NATO than the Ukraine's was before the war, Georgia will be invaded next if the current Georgian Dawn leader (who is more pro-Russia) is voted out?
By getting two more countries to join NATO.
Ah yes, your theory that NATO membership isn't actually a problem - countries Russia already thought were defended can join or not join as they want - it is only countries Russia thinks it can invade but wouldn't be able to if they joined that need to be invaded so they can't protect themselves from an invasion in the future.
Make your case then.
Clearly Ukraine disagrees with you, so make your case for a ceasefire benefiting Ukraine more at this time.
How do you know Zelensky does not want a ceasefire?
Fighting a war is like fighting in a death match between
two people. Neither side can just cease to fight and expect
the other side to do the same. For one side to propose a
ceasefire unilaterally could also be politically damaging.
He's repeatedly asked for a ceasefire and called on one to be negotiated.
Yet nothing has advanced because the terms for a ceasefire have not been acceptable to both sides.
So what makes you say a ceasefire is to their benefit at this time?
Ah yes, because according to you Russia is a perpetual invader. No. Countries like Sweden and Finland do not share the historical baggage that Ukraine does with Russia. Its not like there is a significant Russian population in these countries for example. So there is a huge difference between Finland joining NATO and Ukraine joining NATO.
Putin says Russia has ‘no problems’ with Finland, Sweden in NATO
Comments ease off earlier Russian rhetoric about ‘far-reaching consequences.’
www.politico.eu
just off the top of my had Russia/USSR took a piece from:Ah yes, because according to you Russia is a perpetual invader. No. Countries like Sweden and Finland do not share the historical baggage that Ukraine does with Russia. Its not like there is a significant Russian population in these countries for example. So there is a huge difference between Finland joining NATO and Ukraine joining NATO.
.Putin says Russia has ‘no problems’ with Finland, Sweden in NATO
Comments ease off earlier Russian rhetoric about ‘far-reaching consequences.’
1. Finland
2. Japan
3. Germany
4. Poland
5. Georgia
6. Romania
7. Czechoslovakia
and invaded Afganistan and others.
Yes, we've discussed how Putin moderated his tone towards Finland and Sweden when his Ukraine invasion went bad.Ah yes, because according to you Russia is a perpetual invader. No. Countries like Sweden and Finland do not share the historical baggage that Ukraine does with Russia. Its not like there is a significant Russian population in these countries for example. So there is a huge difference between Finland joining NATO and Ukraine joining NATO.
.Putin says Russia has ‘no problems’ with Finland, Sweden in NATO
Comments ease off earlier Russian rhetoric about ‘far-reaching consequences.’
And yes, Finland has LOTS of baggage with Russia - just different baggage than Ukraine.
Finland itself will tell you that their foreign policy and defense preparations for the last 60+ years have included "how do we handle Russia invading us if they try to do it".
You're the one who keeps saying the reason Russia won't invade Finland is that NATO will protect it.
I didn't bring that in as a reason Russia wouldn't care - you did.
That is you saying that "the ability to invade" is the primary deciding factor.
If now you want to say Russia doesn't care because it has declared itself the defender of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers and therefore plans invasions based on "liberating Greater Russia" then go ahead and make that argument.
I said it wouldn't matter to Russia one way or another. Finland was always safe not just because they would be protected by NATO in the off chance they would be attacked by Russia but because Russia would never attack them in the first place. Although they have their history the historical baggage is not the same as Ukraine's historical baggage.
Finland has politically, culturally and economically aligned with Europe.
Ukraine on the other hand has been a part of Russia until about 30 years ago and heavily pro-Russia until about 8 years ago when a western influenced coup destabilized the country. Ukraine siding with the west and becoming a NATO member therefore is a direct challenge not just to Russia's security but also to their ability to project power in the region. Both of which are existential threats for a country like Russia (the same way the US considered Cuba to be an existential threat because it sided with the Soviet Union). Now who created both of these existential threats? NATO did after promising Russia "not one inch east ward" and then proceeded to decline all of Russia's demands to not expand and not militarize eastern EU against Russia. Hence the war.
Did you ever of something called a "history book", Kreal?Ah yes, because according to you Russia is a perpetual invader. No. Countries like Sweden and Finland do not share the historical baggage that Ukraine does with Russia. Its not like there is a significant Russian population in these countries for example. So there is a huge difference between Finland joining NATO and Ukraine joining NATO.
.Putin says Russia has ‘no problems’ with Finland, Sweden in NATO
Comments ease off earlier Russian rhetoric about ‘far-reaching consequences.’
Who ruled Finland from 1809 to 1917?.... That's a tough one, huh?
Who declared war on Sweden repeatedly in the 1700's and 1800's?..... Another toughie.
Yeah why dont we go back to 1812 and be afraid of the US because they attacked us. You and your silly examples from the distant past.
Russians outnumber the Ukrainians in artillery something like 10 to 1. Same goes for tanks, heavy and medium weapons, logistics, etc. Pretty much everything. Despite all the Russian problems, the Ukrainians are literally hanging by the skin of their teeth. The only thing that's keeping Ukraine in the fight is the literal ocean of the Western equipment and the NATO surveillance assets.
- Status
