Well we know Putins ICBMs won't fail in their silos

originally posted by: Aardwolfington
Russia started it off because they wanted to insure they had Ukraine as a buffer nation between them and the US/UN.

Well, that is Russian BS. UN would never be the aggressor to Russia. A big part of that is because they are basically wussies...lol They play at fighting, but are not in any position to be an aggressor in a real nosh!t aggressor invasion like Russia is like.

Putin wants Ukraine to get the old team back and be a world power once again and not somewhere around what Texas is. Ukraine gives him huge access to the Black Sea, a land bridge to Crimea (you need to research Crimea and Putin), Massive natural resources in eastern Ukraine, a massive breadbasket to many areas of the world, no middleman to the EU in both energy and military, increase the Russian population by 25% so on and so forth....

The situation being threatened by Biden is the very thing they were even attempting this to prevent.

Just like Iran, if Russia just played nice with the world, sold their energy, worked to be a world partner etc no one would want to invade or attack either country, but that isn't what either country does. The world is reactionary to their actions. It's not the world just deciding to attack them, it is the world reacting to their bad deeds.

The US/UN and Russia are both at fault here. Let's not pretend none of our CIA regime changing to get Ukraine to join the UN didn't happen too. Ukraine is being #ed because we want to have our weaponry in easy range to the Kremlin and the Kremlin wants to make sure this doesn't happen and is willing to kill Ukrainians to do it, same as the west.

Once again it was all an excuse by Putin to get Ukraine back. There would be no reason for all these former USSR countries to seek UN protection if Russia wasn't aggressive towards them. Russia has been in like 19 wars since 1992. If you think about it, joining NATO just provides an extra level of protection from a Russian invasion. Russia doesn't want it because they want to invade and quickly win adding these countries back to Russia like they did with Georga and Crimea etc.

This is not Ukraine vs. Russia, it's the Warhawks vs. Russia with the Ukrainian and Russian citizenship as the pawns in the conflict. Only it's perfect for the Warhawks because they get the advantage of their weapon sales without the blowback of US soldiers being involved. It's mostly Ukrainians and Russian citizens doing all the dying.

Agree that the military-industrial complex loves all this.

originally posted by: watchitburn

Like the Ghost of Kiev?
Like F off ship?
Like shooting a rocket into Poland?

Come on man...

Like the 1000s from Russia, come on man.... Hell Russia had dozens of lies as to why they invaded Ukraine alone... In that area, they were 100% lies...

a reply to: Xtrozero

We're having a chicken or the egg argument. It depends on when you think the CIA got involved in the region as to which truth you believe. So I'm going to agree to disagree. Especially as we seem to at least both agree the Warhawks are not on the side of peace in the region, so we agree where it counts.

Also, to a degree, not completely, but to a degree the UN are the US's bitches when the US pushes hard, so you want to leave the UN out and leave it US/Russia, I'm good with that. The UN are pussies, but I push back on our Warhawks being such. Again though, agree to disagree, chicken or the egg.

a reply to: putnam6

All we know is that if this even was an ICBM then one didn't blow up in its silo.

We also know that several Satan missiles did.

We don't know if all their warheads work either.

So we still don't know much at all.

originally posted by: Aardwolfington

We're having a chicken or the egg argument. It depends on when you think the CIA got involved in the region as to which truth you believe. So I'm going to agree to disagree. Especially as we seem to at least both agree the Warhawks are not on the side of peace in the region, so we agree where it counts.

No real white/black hats in all this. I just feel that Russia saw an opportunity to get Ukraine back and they thought it would be a 7-day war like all the others and people would cheer Putin for the effort, and it went horribly wrong. A big reason was the inside corruption in the Russian military where Putin thought he had more than he did, and so they hit a wall and opened the door for the military complex to cheer.

If Russia was good and marched all the way to Kiev this war would not have lasted a month, and the West would never have gotten involved. Think of a big Bear that gets old and slow and one day the pack of wolves sees vulnerabilities that were not there before.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Russia has been losing their good faith some of the international community had towards their grievances.

At the beginning of the war, many were at least willing to hear one the justification Russia had (their perceived western encroachment, whether Ukraines ambition to join the EU was organic or coerced).

But once they start relying on NK and Iran to the extent they’re signing new security agreements, it’s hard to legitimize Russia as a good faith actor for nations who were originally neutral.

Not to mention, this has backfired by bringing more by bringing Sweden and Finland into NATO, which strengthens it far more than Ukraine could have if they could have even made it through the process (which was always a huge doubt).

Putin speaking now, saying it was a new mid range ballistic missile.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

At the beginning of the war, many were at least willing to hear one the justification Russia had (their perceived western encroachment, whether Ukraines ambition to join the EU was organic or coerced).

We need to remember that NATO was an alliance of smaller States that could not combat Russian aggression on their own. We could see the same thing happen in Asia with China as smaller countries form a larger bond with each other if China decides to get super aggressive. Russian aggression is what is pushing countries towards NATO, and not some goal to beat Russia. It's all about defensive self-preservation that Russia has zero to worry about though they talk about NATO encroachment.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
Putin speaking now, saying it was a new mid range ballistic missile.

So the US is allowing Ukraine to use a short-range and Russia is using mid-range missiles, doesn't look like the US is overstepping some line that should not be crossed.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: CriticalStinker

US satellite detection will most likely have detected the launch soon after or when it left the silo.

It's inherently dangerous to fire ICBMs without assuring the rest of the world, they aren't nuclear-tipped ICBMs.

One would assume they aren't but it isn't 100%, what's to keep them from using another 2 dozen?

I suspect they were forewarned. All of the western embassies in Kiev were evacuated just prior to the strike.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
Putin speaking now, saying it was a new mid range ballistic missile.

Yes, Carpy I was about to post about the only positives with this being new perhaps they don't have stockpiles of them already. But the effect for Ukraine is the same unless NATO can counter its use.

kyivindependent.com...

The Ukrainian Air Force said the Russian attack also included a Kinzhal hypersonic missile and seven cruise missiles — all weapons used many times previously by Russia during the war. Six of the Russian missiles were shot down, the air force said.



directly from the horse's ass Putin

a reply to: putnam6

Thanks for posting that.

Well this is spiraling out of control

The US is ready to use nuclear weapons if necessary but would only do so on terms “acceptable” for the country and its interests, US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) spokesman Rear Admiral Thomas Buchanan has said.

Speaking at the Project Atom 2024 event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Wednesday, Buchanan noted that such conditions imply that the US will “continue to lead the world.”

“If we have to have an exchange then we want to do it in terms that are most acceptable to the United States,” which are namely to maintain a position where the US is largely viewed as a world leader, Buchanan said.

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

What's new about that?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: putnam6

In the long run i think poor Ukraine will simply be a stopgap.

Pretty much the sacrificial lamb used to bring about and usher in the new cold war that's on the horizon.

As to victory, i mean that means different things to different people.

But i think its a safe bet to say both Russia and Ukraine have already paid a price that will make such a notion rather a bitter taste in the mouth no matter who manages to claim victory.

Hell of a thing to win really.

and the MIC rejoices...

NATO countries MIC rejoice because now all European countries are pissing thier pants with the thoughts of Russian invasion so they can buy American MIC products or European and UK MIC products.

In Russia, their own MIC rejoices as they can barely keep up, and with the orders that will no doubt come from this one use of this new medium-range ballistic missile that seemingly defeated all defenses

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: putnam6

Reeks of desperation on the part of Russia.

And not exactly what one would call a cost-effective solution by any manner or means.

The whole point of this was to signal to Ukraine and the rest of the world that this could have been a nuclear strike. The missile that was used (RS-26) is more realistically considered an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile. It's launched from a mobile launcher, not from a fixed silo. That's important because as soon as the US sees the silo covers being opened in the Russian missile fields, we go to high alert and assume that a missile could be coming our way. When we detected this launch (and we undoubtedly did) we knew immediately it was not coming our way. They deliberately chose this missile for two reasons. First, it would not bring the US to high alert, and second, it would signal to Ukraine and the rest of Europe that Russia can put multiple, independently targeted nuclear warheads on any European Capital city. That means that Ukraine and the rest of Europe have to be wondering exactly how reliable the US nuclear umbrella is going to be once Trump takes office.

a reply to: Boomer1947

I dont think there was much wonder as to what they could do.

So a pointless expensive exercise.

Thats changed very little.

It won't have the desired effect Putin wants it to methinks.

a reply to: Boomer1947

it would signal to Ukraine and the rest of Europe that Russia can put multiple, independently targeted nuclear warheads on any European Capital city.

And The UK and France would reply in kind onto Russian cities.

a reply to: putnam6

NATO countries MIC rejoice because now all European countries are pissing thier pants with the thoughts of Russian invasion

Well, that is why a lot of the former Soviet Bloc nations chose to join NATO.

Invasion that is, and from Russia no less, not the other way about.

But yeah in the long run, the respective military-industrial complexes win, and Putins is apt to be their best customer if he can find the funds in the future.

The colour of the day there remains the same.

Meh, I could take out a missile base with a bunch of airborne ATS dudes.



Once the surface is secure, I could await the missile launch and knock it out with an RPG7, but my life is boring