Moscow airport bombed by drones

a reply to: CarlLaFong

It also references Bill Burns, head of the CIA:

"CIA director Bill Burns and MI6 chief Sir Richard Moore said that the "audacious" Ukrainian incursion into Russia's Kursk region had sparked panic and sown doubts in the Kremlin."

a reply to: Oldcarpy2


I'm making a generic statement...not taking sides.
When the country comes under direct attack by an enemy...citizens rally behind their leader.
Look only as far as Bush after 9-11 in the US...or Britain's Churchill in WW2.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Vermilion

His countrymen seem more than willing to defend their country.

By negotiating, do you mean capitulating?

As some have pointed out, appeasement of an invasion minded dictator seldom works out well.

Besides, given his track record, why would anyone in their right mind trust Putin to keep his word?

Throwing Ukraine under the bus should not be an option.

His countrymen fled the war to the tune of between 500,000-1,000,000 fighting age men.

I meant what I said, negotiating.

Zelenskyy is just as trustworthy as Putin.
Ukraine and Russia are equally corrupt and rotten to the core.

Ukraine is already under the bus.
They cannot remove themselves from under it so instead of fighting the bus it would be smarter to find another way.

Here’s some irony…
Israel was attacked and then retaliated and they are evil for doing it.
Ukraine was attacked and then retaliated and they are heroes for doing it.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Maybe, we will see.

But Putin is a Dictator who cracks down on dissent, particularly criticism of his "SMO".

Criticism seems to be growing.

a reply to: Vermilion

Israel is not being invaded.

Putin signed an agreement not to attack Ukraine and recognizing it's sovereignty.

Then he attacked and denied its right to exist.

Trustworthy?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Vermilion

Israel is not being invaded.

Putin signed an agreement not to attack Ukraine and recognizing it's sovereignty.

Then he attacked and denied its right to exist.

Trustworthy?

Oct 7 was an invasion.

Zelenskyy is just as trustworthy as Putin. Ukraine and Russia are equally corrupt and rotten to the core.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
a reply to: Oldcarpy2


I'm making a generic statement...not taking sides.
When the country comes under direct attack by an enemy...citizens rally behind their leader.
Look only as far as Bush after 9-11 in the US...or Britain's Churchill in WW2.

It's actually had the opposite effect on some of the ordinary Russians.

apnews.com...

Moscow drone attack exposes Russia’s vulnerabilities, fuels criticism of military.

A drone attack that targeted Moscow on Tuesday exposed glaring breaches in its air defenses and underlined the capital’s vulnerability as more Russian soil comes under fire amid expectations of a Ukrainian counteroffensive.

The attack, which lightly damaged three apartment buildings, angered Russia’s hawks, who scathingly criticized President Vladimir Putin and the military brass for failing to protect the heart of Kremlin power more than 500 kilometers (310 miles) from the front line.

a reply to: alwaysbeenhere2

Thanks for the challenge. That was early on in the reporting with information coming from different sources in different places with the msm running in the rear of the pack.

a reply to: Vermilion

Here’s some irony… Israel was attacked and then retaliated and they are evil for doing it. Ukraine was attacked and then retaliated and they are heroes for doing it.

We have citizens who criticize both, but the policy has been behind Ukraine and Israel mostly bipartisan.

The ironic part to me is Russia and Iran are allies. Iranian drones are being used by Russia in Ukraine, Russia is supplying gear to Iran should Israel become unglued.

I won’t imply Russia has anything to do with October 7th, but it certainly benefited them along with the prolonged conflict there to spread the west a little more thin.

a reply to: Vermilion

Not on the scale of Russia's invasion though.

Nowhere near.

Hashtag Russian Genocide!

AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


(I learned this from the Israel war)

a reply to: Vermilion

Most desperate leaders who care about their country would be negotiating instead of bellying up to the craps table.

You've got to put some cards on the table to start negotiating. Otherwise, it's capitulation, not negotiation. And Ukraine has time to capitulate. Till it has strength to fight, it needs to fight. Ukrainians have nothing to lose. Putin doesn't want just Donbas. He wants to have the whole Ukraine under the Russian influence, the government totally dependent on him, just like it is in the case of Belarus. The more losses Russia suffers, the more chance Ukraine has to repeat the Finnish scenario i.e., save its statehood and independence even if it has to cede some territory to Russia.

Russians understand only the language of strength. They don't negotiate with cowards and weaklings. This is something that the American pseudo-experts on Russia will never understand.

As for your claims that the Ukrainians don't want to fight, when the war comes, there will always be those who prefer to run away instead of fighting. Desertions always happen. I don't want to argue with you about numbers but Russia has the same problem. Mind only that Russia has much bigger army and much bigger male populace that it can mobilize to replace those who ran away.

And Zelensky, whatever you might think of him, chose to risk his life and defend his country. He was given an opportunity to flee to the US but he stayed in his homeland, which makes him a primary target.

originally posted by: Cavemannick
a reply to: annonentity

Zelensky is an antagonistic bastard, if this ends up in a hot war and nuclear weapons are used they’re id only one prick to blame.

At least putin has some sense of semblance.

Putin has approximately 5,500 nuclear warheads in his possession. Zelensky has zero. That's actually the condition Ukraine and Russia agreed to after the breakup of the Soviet Union, in return for the US and the UK assuring Ukraine of military support in resisting a Russian invasion. To state the obvious, Zelensky has absolutely zero authority or responsibility over whether Putin decides to use nuclear weapons or not. Furthermore, if Putin DID decide to use nuclear weapons, one thing we know is that it would NOT be in response to a Zelensky first use or threat of first use.

And yet somehow, you've got it worked out in your mind that if Putin uses the weapons that he has exclusive control over and over which Zelensky has no control whatsoever, then Zelensky has full moral responsibility for that and Putin has none? You've got things bass-ackwards.

a reply to: Boomer1947

I think China might have rather a lot to say over Putin deciding to chuck nukes out of his pram.

a reply to: andy06shake

Russia and China are having a good time with war games in the South China sea at the moment, i don't think a fellow BRICS nation will worry to much when it goes off.

a reply to: annonentity

Then you dont have a clue as to where that "fellow BRICS nation's" primary market resides.

Just something for you to add to the list really.

a reply to: annonentity

If Putin uses first strike nuclear weapons he will be more or less universally condemned....even by China.
Perhaps Iran and North Korea will side with him - good company.

Oh, and there'd be all those Defenders of Freedom and Liberty who would no doubt revel in it.

Let's hope we don't find out.

As for these drone attacks in Moscow; what bastards those Ukrainians are, having the nerve to retaliate and actually fight back against a country that has invaded it and has been bombing civilian targets for well over two years now.

a reply to: Freeborn

Why have nuclear weapons if you can never use them. In that instance you can just say you have them and use the threats to get what you want. To be relevant at some stage they will have to be used .

originally posted by: annonentity
a reply to: Freeborn

Why have nuclear weapons if you can never use them. In that instance you can just say you have them and use the threats to get what you want. To be relevant at some stage they will have to be used .

It was called M.A.D. mutally assured destruction, maybe you've heard of it?
NATO had Nukes, and Russia had Nukes, so if one country fired one, a retaliatory strike was inevitable, and we'd all be dead.

Thats why you never use them.....

a reply to: annonentity

Because nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used in a conventional sense.

They serve as a powerful deterrent rather than as tools of active warfare.

Thats why.