Russia Ukraine Update Thread

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: meiosismb

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


You made the claim that U.K. was arming Ukraine.

Up to you to back up your absurdity.

Easy

coffeeordie.com...

Anti tank DEFENSIVE weapons.

Because russia was threatening to invade.



NOT even remotely comparable to putting nuke missiles in cuba.

Or the definition of 'arming ukraine'.

So I you give me a gun that's not arming me ?

Not when he's using it to justify a crazy whataboutism with nukes on the other side.

Not when claiming that anyone sent Ukraine any kind of offensive weapons.

And not when claiming that anyone sent Ukraine even that much before russia started preparing to invade.

So antitank is not offensive?’isnt it designed to destroy tanks?

I mean a gun is anti-human.

You got proven wrong and cant handle it. Everything to you is whataboutism, hence you are unable to comprehend that how a series of events leads into a conflict. They teach this stuff to KIDS in school for goodness sake!!!

Go back to school and get an education to ARM am yourself with knowledge.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

"Military exercises"?!!!!

How did they turn out?

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: meiosismb

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


You made the claim that U.K. was arming Ukraine.

Up to you to back up your absurdity.

Easy

coffeeordie.com...

Anti tank DEFENSIVE weapons.

Because russia was threatening to invade.



NOT even remotely comparable to putting nuke missiles in cuba.

Or the definition of 'arming ukraine'.

So I you give me a gun that's not arming me ?

Not when he's using it to justify a crazy whataboutism with nukes on the other side.

Not when claiming that anyone sent Ukraine any kind of offensive weapons.

And not when claiming that anyone sent Ukraine even that much before russia started preparing to invade.

So antitank is not offensive?’isnt it designed to destroy tanks?

I mean a gun is anti-human.

You got proven wrong and cant handle it. Everything to you is whataboutism, hence you are unable to comomrehend that how a series of events leads into a conflict. They teach this stuff to KIDS in school for goodness sake!!!

Go back to school and get an education to ARM am yourself with knowledge.

ATGMS are considered defensive weapons.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

My bad i meant at the Yavoriv Command and Control Center.
But ghost of Kivy is real if you watch CNN.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

"Military exercises"?!!!!

How did they turn out?

Well the discussion with that poster is about the activities before Russian troops left their territory. That was the scope.

Death toll rises to 35 in Russian missile strike on base in western Ukraine, close to Poland’s border

At least 35 people were killed and more than 130 injured in a Russian missile attack on a base in western Ukraine, just ten miles from the border with Poland.

The deadly missile barrage, which devastated a base northwest of Lviv, drew the conflict close to NATO’s border and showed Moscow expanding its war effort to parts of Ukraine that so far have escaped bombs and shelling.

The governor of Lviv, Maksym Kozytskyy, said that Russian forces had fired more than 30 cruise missiles at the base, known as the International Center for Peacekeeping & Security. Air defense systems had knocked out some of the missiles.

The strike ramps up the stakes of the 17-day-old Russia-Ukraine war. While NATO has so far ruled out imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, the alliance is supporting Ukraine’s resistance via weapons shipments, many of which transit through Poland.

Attacks against such shipments would bring Russia and NATO closer to direct conflict — a scenario that NATO’s chief and the White House have repeatedly said they want to avoid. According to Ukraine’s defense minister, foreign instructors had worked at the base near Lviv, although it remained unclear whether foreigners were among those killed in the attack.

“Russia has attacked the International Center for Peacekeeping & Security near Lviv. Foreign instructors work here. Information about the victims is being clarified,” tweeted the minister, Oleksii Reznikov. “This is new terrorist attack on peace & security near the EU-NATO border. Action must be taken to stop this. Close the sky!”

U.K. minister Michael Gove called the attack “a significant escalation.”

The assault came a day after Moscow threatened to take action against Western countries’ continued supply of arms to Ukraine.

“We warned the United States that the orchestrated pumping of weapons from a number of countries is not just a dangerous move, it is a move that turns these convoys into legitimate targets,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told state television Channel One on Saturday.

Pentagon says 'an armed attack against one is considered an armed attack against all' if Russian forces strike in Poland

The Pentagon reaffirmed its commitment to NATO on Sunday as Russia continues to cause chaos in eastern Europe.

While Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said US troops will not be going to fight in Ukraine, he did say the US would maintain its commitment to its NATO allies.

"An armed attack against one is considered an armed attack against all," Kirby said on ABC News on Sunday. "We've made it very clear to Russia that NATO territory will be defended not just by the United States, but by our allies."

The comments come after Russian forces attacked a military base in western Ukraine near the Polish border on Sunday, targeting the International Peacekeeping and Security Center (IPSC) in Yavoriv and killing at least 35 people.


The town of Yavoriv sits some 15 miles from Poland, a NATO member since 1999.

Kirby on Sunday repeated that US troops would not be fighting in Ukraine because "getting involved in combat in Ukraine right now or over the skies of Ukraine right now leads to war with Russia."

"We continue to flow and to move and to reposition forces and capabilities along NATO's eastern flank to make sure that we can defend every inch of NATO territory if we need to," Kirby added.

It seems as if the warmongers and war hawks on both sides are itching for an escalation, while the cooler heads are still trying to negotiate some sort of ceasefire. All it takes is for one false move to escalate this war beyond Ukraine's borders.

a reply to: majesticgent

That is near the NATO At Yavoriv Command and Control center if i read some reports correctly.
The Russians knew.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


You made the claim that U.K. was arming Ukraine.

Up to you to back up your absurdity.

Easy

coffeeordie.com...

Anti tank DEFENSIVE weapons.

Because russia was threatening to invade.



NOT even remotely comparable to putting nuke missiles in cuba.

Or the definition of 'arming ukraine'.

You got the answer you just didnt like it. UK ARMED ukraine before RUSSIA did anything. Russia are WELL WITHIN their rights to have been conducting military exercises in their own territory.

“When did UK arm Ukraine”

January 2022.

And again, cuban missile crises was in response to USA deploying NUCLEAR MISSILES in TUrkey first.

You got proved wrong, again.

How?

Russia was preparing to invade in jan 2022.

And I never claimed we didn't put weapons in Turkey.

I said that the cuban missile crisis was over nukes, while the Ukrainian invasion is not.

Both are completely accurate.

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

Doesn't matter if they are physically there (icbm's)
A NATO membership guarantee's an umbrella of protection, even nukes
that is what the issue is about for Russia

a reply to: majesticgent

If anyone would be pushing for a false flag to escalate things further i dont think it would be the Russians.
They are just using Ukraine to push their agenda.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

"So antitank is not offensive?’isnt it designed to destroy tanks?"

Yes. In this case invading tanks.

a reply to: vNex92

The Russian minister did say that the convoys of weapons being shipped to Ukraine were targets. I would bet that the Russians had intelligence that this base was a staging ground for storing those weapons.

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: PatriotGames4u

Doesn't matter if they are physically there (icbm's)
A NATO membership guarantee's an umbrella of protection, even nukes
that is what the issue is about for Russia

Ukraine was repeatedly refused membership in NATO.

So still no missiles for Ukraine.

a reply to: vNex92

Of course you wouldn't.

Why not?

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

Not until recently,after Russia's assault
-There is hope for negotiation
but Putin/Russia will have to give a little
I think we all can agree on the probable outcome

a reply to: vNex92

That may be true, but both sides have their warmongers and hawks that want to see this conflict broaden for whatever reason.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: meiosismb

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


You made the claim that U.K. was arming Ukraine.

Up to you to back up your absurdity.

Easy

coffeeordie.com...

Anti tank DEFENSIVE weapons.

Because russia was threatening to invade.



NOT even remotely comparable to putting nuke missiles in cuba.

Or the definition of 'arming ukraine'.

So I you give me a gun that's not arming me ?

Not when he's using it to justify a crazy whataboutism with nukes on the other side.

Not when claiming that anyone sent Ukraine any kind of offensive weapons.

And not when claiming that anyone sent Ukraine even that much before russia started preparing to invade.

So my country sending stingers and panzerfausts to ukraine is not arming ukraine according to you? Do I understand you correctly?

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u



ATGMS are considered defensive weapons.

Exactly, operative word WEAPONS.

And what is the definition of ARMING? To equip with WEAPONS.

Now when we put all that together.

UK EQUIPPED UKRAINE WITH WEAPONS.

UK ARMED UKRAINE WITH WEAPONS.

Journalist shot by Russia More fake news

Check out the shelves on the right at the very beginning then pause at 17 seconds And look how it changes

More Russian propaganda?

Or more fake ass news for you guys to spread as real?

Clearly a green screen and more lies

Watch it b4 they delete it.

originally posted by: meiosismb

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: meiosismb

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


You made the claim that U.K. was arming Ukraine.

Up to you to back up your absurdity.

Easy

coffeeordie.com...

Anti tank DEFENSIVE weapons.

Because russia was threatening to invade.



NOT even remotely comparable to putting nuke missiles in cuba.

Or the definition of 'arming ukraine'.

So I you give me a gun that's not arming me ?

Not when he's using it to justify a crazy whataboutism with nukes on the other side.

Not when claiming that anyone sent Ukraine any kind of offensive weapons.

And not when claiming that anyone sent Ukraine even that much before russia started preparing to invade.

So my country sending stingers and panzerfausts to ukraine is not arming ukraine according to you? Do I understand you correctly?

No.

Not 'arming' as used in this discussion about Ukraine posing any kind of threat to russia.

Ukraine posed zero threat to russia.

AND

Nobody sent even these defensive weapons until russia started prepping for invading ukraine.