Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 2

a reply to: Xcathdra

February 19, 2022

a reply to: JinMI

After you posted that I think I can hear the sound of scraping. It is reminiscent of the sound of a goalpost being moved.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Well it appears Ukraine now has more tanks than the Russians do

www.msn.com... 6e5d9da3526b491cb4f2008a9e984dde

Normally I would say Russia can just produce more tanks but since that is no longer possible for Russia....

originally posted by: generalbattle
a reply to: dragonridr

T-72 is a death trap. Not even Russians are focused on MBT anymore.

Wow so you're telling me Russia sacrificed all those soldiers knowing it's a death trap? No wonder Russian troops are refusing to fight.

All I will say is for not focusing on MBTs as you said the Russians sure did lose a lot of them. The reality is the T72s are fine its the tactics that was wrong tanks are supposed to ack up infantry this isn't world war 2 where you blitz in your tanks. The Problem the Russians have is they are still fighting like it's WW2.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xcathdra

February 19, 2022

Yup now point out where it says they want nukes.. Reading the article and using a search there is only 1 reference to nuclear and it discusses the Budapest memo and guarantees for giving up nuclear weapons.

Also it was mentioned AFTER Russia invaded Ukraine and only because Russia violated the Budapest memo.

a reply to: Grimpachi

More akin to a person's position being destroyed because the article does not support the claim made. Nothing discusses Ukraine wanting to acquire Nuclear weapons. In case you forgot it was Russia who falsely claimed Ukraine was threatening the use of Nuclear weapons against Russia. Then Russia changed the claim to NATO wanting to deploy nuclear weapons to Ukraine.

Why is Russia attacking Ukraine? Here are 5 reasons Putin and others have given for the invasion

Dubious concerns over nuclear weapons

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine voluntarily gave up the nuclear weapons in its territory in exchange for a guarantee of security by the US, the UK, and Russia.

Putin, however, has expressed concern that Ukraine has the knowledge and desire to obtain nuclear weapons, thus posing a threat to Moscow. While there is no evidence that Ukraine is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, The New York Times reported that Putin had spewed conspiracy theories to talk up the threat and use it to justify an invasion.

"If Ukraine acquires weapons of mass destruction, the situation in the world and in Europe will drastically change, especially for us, for Russia," Putin said Tuesday. "We cannot but react to this real danger, all the more so since, let me repeat, Ukraine's Western patrons may help it acquire these weapons to create yet another threat to our country."

US officials and NATO have repeatedly said there are no plans to arm Ukraine with nuclear weapons.

Kind of funny Putin has no issues threatening other countries with nukes but gets offended when its thrown back in their face.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world’s third nuclear capability. We don’t have that weapon. We also have no security. We also do not have part of the territory of our state that is larger in area than Switzerland, the Netherlands or Belgium. And most importantly – we don’t have millions of our citizens. We don’t have all this.

Therefore, we have something. The right to demand a shift from a policy of appeasement to ensuring security and peace guarantees.

Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. Today Ukraine will do it for the fourth time. I, as President, will do this for the first time. But both Ukraine and I are doing this for the last time. I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was commissioned to convene them. If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt.

a reply to: JinMI

and Russia invaded Ukraine back in 2014 so, again, you would be wrong. Even your article says you guys are wrong.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Would I though?

Were you talking about 2014 when you called BS....reaaaaaaly X ?

a reply to: JinMI

and when the comment was made it was made AFTER 2014. So Russia is lying with their bs about Ukraine wanting nukes and thats the reason for their invasion.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Saying they might withdraw from the Budapest Memorandum isn't a threat about acquiring nukes?

I thought I was dealing with an adult but I am having second thoughts on that. That sound wasn't the goalpost moving it was your jungle gym straining from your contortions.

In fact, I don't think you are dumb so I really wish you didn't act like it. I know what that statement meant as well as anyone else paying attention does. It was passive-aggressive, beating around the bush that would give plausible deniability if pressed from any backlash that it could stir but it was a threat nonetheless.

a reply to: Grimpachi

No one said anything about leaving the Budapest memo. Russia violated it when they invaded Ukraine starting in 2014.

and you are dealing with an adult. You are just pissy cause your argument collapsed and once again your comments exposed Russia's lies.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So you are claiming it wasn't a threat?


Is that your stance?

Unlike you, I don't give a crap about perceived wins or losses on this topic. What matters to me is the facts and reality of what happened. Laying them down in earnest isn't going to change the direction of the war but IMO it is important.

a reply to: Grimpachi

No I am saying the threat to require nukes occurred AFTER Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Russia's actions in violating the Budapest memo essentially freed Ukraine to require nukes as a deterrent to Russian aggression. This is not a hard concept to understand so drop the bs mental gymnastics and your attempt to blame Ukraine when Russia is the one to blame.

If facts mattered to you, you would not be trying so hard to exonerate Russia's actions by repeating Putins lies.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh, I see, that sound was the goalposts being moved.

originally posted by: generalbattle
a reply to: dragonridr

Do you honest think Stingers are the panacea to air threats? If that were the case there's no need for Patriot then. Not to spoil your little party but Stinger don't have the ceiling to engage high flying armed drones.

If Americans want to shoot down Russian armed drones they would have to send Patriot to Ukraine.

Stingers have proven quite effective against larger russian drones in Ukraine, but are useless against the smaller models, as expected.

Using Patriots to shoot down russian drones would be a little like crushing a beer can with a 30 ton car crusher, but it can be done.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh, I see, that sound was the goalposts being moved.

no, as I said it was your argument collapsing.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xcathdra

Would I though?

Were you talking about 2014 when you called BS....reaaaaaaly X ?

Well, it is an honest mistake.

When I said Zelensky spouted off a week before the invasion he thought I was talking about back in 2014 before Zelensky was president.


Totally understandable.

a reply to: Grimpachi

No I said Zelensky made the comment after Russia invaded Ukraine. You guys tried saying Zelensky made the threat before Russia invaded. 2014 is when Russia invaded Ukraine and the comment was made Feb 2022.

Is that all you are going to do is lie?