Russia Ukraine Update Thread

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


So putin just completely fabricated the Tomahawks in Poland story.

Nice of you to finally admit it.

Is this the mysterious 'threat to russia' that you keep referring to, that Americans might someday sneak Tomahawks into Poland for the purposes of attacking russia?

Are you unaware that Tomahawks can be air launched in bulk from a b52, and single launched from thousands of other American planes?

Or that only a fool would build a cruise missle launcher with range of the intended enemy's cruise missiles?

The United States has conducted a test launch of a cruise missile from a land-based MK-41 test launcher which is the launcher used in poland by the Aegis Ashore system.

So to conclude,

US threat 1 - deploying SM-3 IIA missiles to Poland 75 miles from Russia and testing them against ICBM targets.
Which poses a threat to the ONLY ICBM capable nation in and around Poland.
US threat 2 - Aegis Ashore launchers on poland have been tested with cruise missiles and can be used to launch offensive missiles such as the tomahawk.

Thats not keeping the peace, as the the US would have a complete meltdown if Russia returned the favour.

Mysterious threat? I’ve shared statements by three high ranking US foreign policy experts who have clearly and unequivocally asserted that the threat is very much real and reckless behaviour by NATO

SM3 are not capable of 'threatening' russia.

Russia ALREADY has cruise missles launchers within range of NATO countries, and has for a LONG time, making your attempted Whataboutism on the subject pretty pathetic.

You shared statements of folks saying that putin would PERCEIVE it as a threat, not that it actually is any kind of threat.

They already knew that putin has a strange perception of reality.



So that's it?

The 'threat' to russia is that Americans installed air defense missles in Poland and 'might' someday also put cruise missiles there, well within the range of russian cruise missiles?

Pretty weak excuse for invading Ukraine.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

In 2008 when Russia developed and tested the SSC-8 cruise missile and then compounded that by lying about the missiles range (Russia claims a range of 300 miles where as intel placed its range at over 1900 miles). Instead of stopping there Russia then developed the mobile SS-25 and RS-26.

Whats ironic is the reason Russia gave for wanting to redo the INF treaty. Russia says China is not bound by the treaty. So apparently using China as a reason is something only Russia can use.

The US formally left the INF in 2019, 11 years after Russia violated it and decided to not negotiate a replacement.

An acquaintance of mine put together this video about two weeks before the invasion. The whole thing is good but at 31:56 it talks about NATOs military maneuvers leading up to the conflict. It is always good to get some perspective IMO. Keep in mind he made it so it had some humor because the video was aimed at US audiences. The first minute of the clip shows that.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Polish air defense missiles are a threat to russia?

Or the fact that some countries aspire to join a defensive alliance meant to defend against a russian invasion, a threat to russia?

Sounds pretty absurd.

Thanks for all the jibberish, but it doesn't contain any actual threat to russia.

So why do the US foreign policy experts believe it is a threat to Russia? Or are they stupid?

“Air defence” those platforms can launch tomahawk missiles.

Oh and they’re not Polish, they’re american hosted in Poland. Nice try to misrepresent the facts, Not on my watch.

They agree that RUSSIA will see it as a threat, not that it actually is some kind of threat.

They know putin's a madman hell bent on rebuilding the ussr.

Huge difference.



Is anyone here aware of any ACTUAL threats to russia prior to russia invading Ukraine?

Seeing as you have the reading comprehension of a child I’ll have to break it down to you -

Robert M. Gates, who served as secretary of defense in both Bush's administration and Barack Obama's, conceded that:

“trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching."

In the above remark Robert is saying that NATOs attempts to bring in Ukraine was unnecessary, not needed, taking a step too far, unwarranted


That initiative, he (Robert) concluded, was a case of "recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests."

Robert in the above remark is commenting on NATOs behaviour as being RECKLESS in not considering Russias concerns regarding NATOs ambition to bring in Ukraine as a member.


He said it was RECKLESS on NATOs part. I.e he is saying it should have been AVOIDED. Synonyms for reckless include ILL-ADVISED

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


So putin just completely fabricated the Tomahawks in Poland story.

Nice of you to finally admit it.

Is this the mysterious 'threat to russia' that you keep referring to, that Americans might someday sneak Tomahawks into Poland for the purposes of attacking russia?

Are you unaware that Tomahawks can be air launched in bulk from a b52, and single launched from thousands of other American planes?

Or that only a fool would build a cruise missle launcher with range of the intended enemy's cruise missiles?

The United States has conducted a test launch of a cruise missile from a land-based MK-41 test launcher which is the launcher used in poland by the Aegis Ashore system.

So to conclude,

US threat 1 - deploying SM-3 IIA missiles to Poland 75 miles from Russia and testing them against ICBM targets.
Which poses a threat to the ONLY ICBM capable nation in and around Poland.
US threat 2 - Aegis Ashore launchers on poland have been tested with cruise missiles and can be used to launch offensive missiles such as the tomahawk.

Thats not keeping the peace, as the the US would have a complete meltdown if Russia returned the favour.

Mysterious threat? I’ve shared statements by three high ranking US foreign policy experts who have clearly and unequivocally asserted that the threat is very much real and reckless behaviour by NATO

SM3 are not capable of 'threatening' russia.

Russia ALREADY has cruise missles launchers within range of NATO countries, and has for a LONG time, making your attempted Whataboutism on the subject pretty pathetic.

You shared statements of folks saying that putin would PERCEIVE it as a threat, not that it actually is any kind of threat.

They already knew that putin has a strange perception of reality.



So that's it?

The 'threat' to russia is that Americans installed air defense missles in Poland and 'might' someday also put cruise missiles there, well within the range of russian cruise missiles?

Pretty weak excuse for invading Ukraine.

They’re not folks. That’s probably the people in your
Village.

These individuals are US foreign policy experts. They know more than you know by a country mile.

And the Antiballistic Missile Treaty was set up EXACTLY for threats like the SM-3 missile deployment. Hence USA had
To leave the ABM treaty in order to Deploy thise missiles in poland.

That treaty was signed by USA and USSR in 1972 in response to the CUban missile crisis.

So play it down as much as you like, the experts have spoken and they pretty much said the opposite of what you say.
Mr arm-chair opinionator.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101


You didn't claim that NATO was 'reckless', I would have agreed with that statement.

You claimed that somebody was threatening russia prior to invading Ukraine and haven't yet provided an example of such, other than that Americans might someday sneak Tomahawks into Poland or shoot down 12 of russia's 1200 ICBMs on the way to Europe and North America.

Got anything else, or is that the only 'threat to russia' that you can come up with?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

In 2008 when Russia developed and tested the SSC-8 cruise missile and then compounded that by lying about the missiles range (Russia claims a range of 300 miles where as intel placed its range at over 1900 miles). Instead of stopping there Russia then developed the mobile SS-25 and RS-26.

Whats ironic is the reason Russia gave for wanting to redo the INF treaty. Russia says China is not bound by the treaty. So apparently using China as a reason is something only Russia can use.

The US formally left the INF in 2019, 11 years after Russia violated it and decided to not negotiate a replacement.

Exactly, 2008 thats all i needed to hear.

And when did USA leave the ABM treaty? 2002.

Ergo it predates the INF “violation”. So in short, and as usual. America are the trouble starters. But hey don’t take my word for it, plenty of policy makers agreed it was a mistake for USA to withdraw.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Air defense missles.

To defend against Iranian balistic missiles.

Tomahawks can't reach Iran from Poland.

And Iran missiles can reach where mister expert?

What are the areas the polish deployment is meant to protect?


They don’t have ICBMs

Europe was not keen on a US missile shield because it left them open to attack from Iran, whose missiles could hit Europe (violating UNSC resolutions on Iran's ballistic missile and nuke programs). This would be why it was deployed to Poland.

Also Russia uses the same nuclear triad the US uses. Our ABM missiles are good for single use launches. Russia uses Multiple Independently-targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVS), something our NMD could not stop.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


You didn't claim that NATO was 'reckless', I would have agreed with that statement.

You claimed that somebody was threatening russia prior to invading Ukraine and haven't yet provided an example of such, other than that Americans might someday sneak Tomahawks into Poland or shoot down 12 of russia's 1200 ICBMs on the way to Europe and North America.

Got anything else, or is that the only 'threat to russia' that you can come up with?

No that’s pretty much what the experts are saying on the matter, NATO expansion, and missile deployments in Poland are unwarranted and a provocative towards russia.

Basically the same way you are downplaying the expansion and deployment, the experts are going in the opposite direction saying this is a “big deal”, shouldn’t have happened, and would lead to a conflict with Russia.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Respectfully you need to pay attention to what we are talking about.

The NMD (ABM Treaty) treaty is what we left in 2002.

Russia violated the INF treaty in 2008, and the US did not leave it until 2019.

They are 2 completely different treaties covering missile defense and intermediate range missiles with nuke capability.

The US withdrawing from the ABM treaty had no impact on the INF treaty.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Air defense missles.

To defend against Iranian balistic missiles.

Tomahawks can't reach Iran from Poland.

And Iran missiles can reach where mister expert?

What are the areas the polish deployment is meant to protect?


They don’t have ICBMs

The very public fear, supported by many test launches, is that Iran was quickly developing ICBM capabilities.

The Polish station was meant to defend against these, is nowhere nowhere near large enough to be any kind of deterrent to russia, and is a fixed location well within range of russia's cruise missiles.

It poses no threat to russia.

So this is the real reason Russia felt threatened and had to preemptively invade Ukraine. I still don’t agree that they should have done it and I think Putin could have worked this out diplomatically but dam the dude was screaming for a decade about How the Ukrainian President was a CIA Installed puppet put in by a CIA funded color revolution.

“ The background and implications of the 2014 far-right coup in Kiev, which overthrew the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, is critical for understanding the current Ukraine-Russia war. This coup was openly supported by US and European countries and implemented primarily by far-right shock troops such as the Right Sector and the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party.
It represented the temporary culmination of long-standing efforts by the USA to install a puppet regime on the borders of Russia and brought the world a major step closer to a war between the largest nuclear powers, the US and Russia. ”

Now I read that the election of Viktor Yanukovych was contested by the losing party and outside of the country auditors from European countries came in and found nothing significantly wrong with the election. This of course was disputed by the losing party.

What I find hysterical and ironic is we cracked down HARDCORE OF THE “INSURRECTION” OF JAN 6th 2021 because of THE BIG LIE and don’t u ever question election results and we think we have the moral high ground to go into another country and start a coup to violently overhrow a DEMOCRACTICLY ELECTED President of a foreign country and install a PRO EU AND PRO USA puppet President in a country that literally sits RIGHT NEXT to the other nuclear superpower who we had a 60 year Cold War with?

Why is anyone suprised at the invasion then?
I think the USA is being intellectually dishonest about the gravity of what we have done in the past.
We just ended a 20 year war in Afghanistan and pulled out.
I think our EGO has gotten to big. I love my country and I am a Patriot but this is the truth as I see it.

We claim we are fighting for democracy when we actually subverted democracy by funding a coup in a foreign country!
By the way we have a long and detailed history of funding and starting coups in like 20 countries in the past 60 years for our monetary or political gain.

I think we need check ourselves before we wreck ourselves.

Russia never attacked me or my family or any of my friends? Why should I support fighting Russia?

a reply to: Brassmonkey

I think the concern is the fact Putin has given like 10 different reason for invading Ukraine, none of which are based on fact or in realty.

If he was trying to protect the Donbass area then why try to invade the entire country? Why try to take the largest cities, which are not even in the affected areas? Why the push for Odessa when it is not part of the region in question.

As for the viewpoint on the US please remember Russia is no angel either. Russia tried to assassinate the PM of Montenegro to stop it from joining NATO. A country that has no border with Russia. Now why would former east block countries, who had the misfortune of being under Soviet occupation for 50+ years, flock to the EU and NATO.

As for Ukraine people seem to ignore facts. The prime minister (2014) agreed to step down in the agreement. The Rada then reverted back to the constitution (the one before whats his nuts changed). When that occurred, the PM fled the country to Russia. Under the old reinstated constitution the PM abandoned his position, open the door to replace him.

a reply to: Brassmonkey


I don't support fighting in russia either, is that a new thing that didn't make the news?

I do support Ukrainians defending their homeland from a large russian invasion, don't you?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Air defense missles.

To defend against Iranian balistic missiles.

Tomahawks can't reach Iran from Poland.

And Iran missiles can reach where mister expert?

What are the areas the polish deployment is meant to protect?


They don’t have ICBMs

Europe was not keen on a US missile shield because it left them open to attack from Iran, whose missiles could hit Europe (violating UNSC resolutions on Iran's ballistic missile and nuke programs). This would be why it was deployed to Poland.

Also Russia uses the same nuclear triad the US uses. Our ABM missiles are good for single use launches. Russia uses Multiple Independently-targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVS), something our NMD could not stop.

You might be right, but they are continuing to evolve that platform and conduct testing with new systems to combat MIRVs and Russia perceives this as a threat as the missiles are 75 miles from their border which have been tested against ICBMs

Instead of promoting mutual vulnerability, which would in turn enhance stability, U.S. missile defenses are viewed as destabilizing By Russia and thats my point.
Its not promoting peace and, Iran are not as much a threat to Europe as the US would have you believe.

It’s like two superpowers in a wrestling ring fighting over who gets to have the puppet president in the buffer country. a reply to: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Air defense missles.

To defend against Iranian balistic missiles.

Tomahawks can't reach Iran from Poland.

And Iran missiles can reach where mister expert?

What are the areas the polish deployment is meant to protect?


They don’t have ICBMs

Europe was not keen on a US missile shield because it left them open to attack from Iran, whose missiles could hit Europe (violating UNSC resolutions on Iran's ballistic missile and nuke programs). This would be why it was deployed to Poland.

Also Russia uses the same nuclear triad the US uses. Our ABM missiles are good for single use launches. Russia uses Multiple Independently-targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVS), something our NMD could not stop.

You might be right, but they are continuing to evolve that platform and conduct testing with new systems to combat MIRVs and Russia perceives this as a threat as the missiles are 75 miles from their border which have been tested against ICBMs

Instead of promoting mutual vulnerability, which would in turn enhance stability, U.S. missile defenses are viewed as destabilizing By Russia and thats my point.
Its not promoting peace and, Iran are not as much a threat to Europe as the US would have you believe.

They STILL pose no threat to russia, and certainly no threat that would justify a large invasion of Ukraine.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: Brassmonkey


I don't support fighting in russia either, is that a new thing that didn't make the news?

I do support Ukrainians defending their homeland from a large russian invasion, don't you?

Yes I support the Ukrainians defending their homeland against the invaders . Would you agree that giving them billions of dollars in javelins and stingers and ammunitions count as fighting the Russians? Seems like we have skin in the game now. If China was giving arms to Russia would you agree they are as your enemy as well?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Respectfully you need to pay attention to what we are talking about.

The NMD (ABM Treaty) treaty is what we left in 2002.

Russia violated the INF treaty in 2008, and the US did not leave it until 2019.

They are 2 completely different treaties covering missile defense and intermediate range missiles with nuke capability.

The US withdrawing from the ABM treaty had no impact on the INF treaty.

How can you make the assertion that US withdrawal from ABM treaty did not sour relations and impact Russia’s behaviour to other treaties in place?? As thats what I am asserting.

Same way west placed sanctions on Russia, destabilising the ruble and Russia responds by demanding gas exports are paid for in rubles. Its the same thing. The treaties are different, but when one party is leaving a critical treaty that is having an adverse affect on how other parties continue the relationship.

It’s a completely logical assertion to make on my part. Naturally you will defend Americas actions in withdrawing, but I know US experts that didn’t view it as a positive, or needed.

I saw an interview from the former President and he said he didn’t step down. He fled the country with his life because the protesters broke into the main building he was in and wanted to kill him. They doesn’t sound very Democratic to me. a reply to: Xcathdra