|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
Putin's war on Ukraine
I wonder if anyone can be honest. I want you to imagine Trump and his sons were rumored to have ties to Ukraine, and possibly both getting payments from Ukraine.....and suddenly....we found our selves in a proxy war with Russia by... aiding... Ukraine with billions of dollars. you guys would be losing your minds. I do this to show ....YOU.... are MAGA. you have actually been sold on a war. and not just any war.,...one where the word nuclear exchange is now spoken of like its a forgone conclusion. but you guys are all in despite you yourselves never got any money from Ukraine yourselves. at least that would explain SOMETHING. you guys cast your lots with the devil for no benefit whatsoever. I guess compared to Bidens charms, Trump is small time. Jan 31 24 04:01 pm Link Tony, now you've got me REALLY confused, trying to figure out what you're proposing... Are you suggesting that we should IGNORE Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and their threats on Europe and just let Russia "take" Europe? That's presuming we ignore the U.S.'s NATO obligations which would drag America into a full blown DIRECT Russia / U.S. war? Instead of trying to contain it at Ukraine? And IF you are proposing just let Russia "have it all", do you have any idea of the stunning impact on U.S. food prices and everything else? If you thought inflation was a problem before, you haven't seen ANYTHING yet! Or is this just another on of those "ignore the facts" proposals because, apparently, it can't possibly come back to seriously haunt us (like Global Warming, COVID, etc, etc)? Or maybe it's time to learn from the massive mistakes of the past, and start being PROACTIVE about the really serious stuff, while we still can. Then again, maybe I misunderstand you and you are NOT actually backing Putin and Russia over NATO / the E.U. (to the benefit of the U.S. and the West) in this matter. If so, please feel free to clarify who you are supporting with your post. Or are you just throwing sh*t at the wall? Jan 31 24 07:21 pm Link Tony From Syracuse wrote: Yes. By all means. Let's be HONEST. Jan 31 24 08:21 pm Link If there was any evidence Biden had taken money from any foreign actor, he would have been impeached already. But trump flagrantly violated the emoluments clause and Republicans didn't and still don't care, and they are protecting him from further investigations into the matter. If any other president had had a coffee shop and they sold coffee to foreign dignitaries, it would not have been adequate to say they were providing a service or product for a business transaction. The business transaction is illegal. No ifs, ands or buts. Unless you are trump. Then trump businesses are going to go through the rigorous process of donating all profits to the treasury from each individual transaction? Okay, it is still illegal, but let's see the books. Let's see the tax returns. Something trump fought until he was out of office and now says, it doesn't matter if he broke the law because he had immunity for everything he could have done and did do in office. Furthermore, even a transaction in which profits are removed, is still a transaction that supports the business because each cup of coffee sold has figured in, the fixed costs and variable costs of serving that coffee. Therefore, if the business engages in any transaction, they are receiving funds that keep that business afloat and possibly makes other sales more profitable because the costs are being spread over more items sold- which increases the profits on other items as the retailer is unlikely to lower prices to account for increased volume. All of that increase then should also be donated to the treasury or trump should have done like every other president and not run a business while in office, but he is far too greedy for that. Russia shot down the Malaysian passenger jet in July of 2014. The Russians were involved in aggressive actions against Ukraine years before trump took office. Why didn't Russia increase the aggressive acts against Ukraine during the four years that trump was in office? (Less the 307 days (21% of his term in office) that he was on the golf course.) Because the Russians fucking own trump and Republicans are willfully obtuse to that, as they are regarding every other wrong headed policy they promote. For instance, Idaho's Republican Senate has passed a bill to redefine the state laws in Idaho so that domestic terrorism can flourish there by changing the definition of a domestic terrorist into a term that must include "cooperation with a foreign terrorist organization" and gutting their domestic terrorism laws. Do they not understand what domestic means? Or are they once again trying to disengage from reality? Welcome back Tony. Thanks for once again volunteering to be the cannon fodder to allow others to decimate the feeble positions of the right. Thanks for another incoherent post. Jan 31 24 10:23 pm Link Tony From Syracuse wrote: You certainly do have a lot of imagination. Trump has contacts in Russia, not Ukraine and this is a fact rather than a rumour. Feb 01 24 03:08 am Link Now....seriously, you're worried about eastern Europe. Hunter the warhawk. Crimea and Georgia wept. like I said, just imagine! really imagine if it was Eric Trump involved in Ukraine and there was a "big guy" alluded to getting payments and we ended up in a war on Ukraine side. maybe you are that far gone. some here I know they are. there would be mass dem protests in the streets. you all would be just beyond angry posting here.... but like I said, you lot sold your soul for your guy. Feb 01 24 10:03 am Link Tony From Syracuse wrote: In short, you have nothing to say that is based in fact. Just the imaginary ramblings of what could have been while ignoring what really is. It is a strange thing for you to find solace in the imaginary but that is what trumpism is all about. Projecting shortcomings of themselves onto others and ignoring reality. Feb 01 24 10:09 am Link JSouthworth wrote: I was using a "what if" scenario. and I am sure Trump does have contacts in Russia. I have a contact in Russia also. Feb 01 24 10:09 am Link Hunter GWPB wrote: People allude to things all the time that are in fact true but just havent been investigated due to agencys being politicized. Feb 01 24 10:13 am Link Tony From Syracuse wrote: Yeah. You know those things happen. Evidence free, but you know. Remember, it is your guys that are in charge of the house, so if investigations are stymied, it is your guys doing it. Of course the FBI didn't sit on false accusations against Hillary, but you know they do it. trump is using every tactic he can to delay trials until after the election because he is so open to transparency, right? Feb 01 24 10:14 am Link I have no stake in the matter. I am only telling you if Eric Trump was given a job in Ukraine despite zero experience, and he was getting money from Ukraine and it was alluded there was a big guy getting a cut also, you would be against the Ukraine war. thats how bendy you are. Feb 01 24 10:23 am Link  . You mean like how Jared got billions from the Saudis? Or how eric and donnie and the rest of the trump organization got millions from illegal business transactions under daddy's leadership? And yet Republicans in Congress are stonewalling investigations? Yeah, right. Maybe I will revisit the rest of the irrational pile of carp you laid out later. No stake! Indeed! You do have quite the imagination.Feb 01 24 11:04 am Link LightDreams wrote: You completely avoided his question Feb 02 24 02:09 am Link Tony From Syracuse wrote: Trump's contacts in Russia are not a matter for speculation, they exist objectively whereas his putative contacts in Ukraine are an invention on your part. Who do you know in Russia? Feb 02 24 03:28 am Link Tony From Syracuse wrote: Hunter GWPB wrote: The records show that Jared got $2 Billion from the Saudis. No one denies that. In fairness to Jared, he WANTED $6 Billion... Feb 02 24 12:56 pm Link LightDreams wrote: There's ample evidence of commercial interaction between Trump and Putin of a kind that would potentially compromise Trump from the security perspective. It's also clear to most people that nothing that Trump says, in or out of court can be taken at face value. Feb 03 24 06:06 am Link Article here about Donald Trump threatening to renege on NATO commitments. Further evidence of collusion with the Putin regime? https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/tr … &ei=12 https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/fu … &ei=38 The war in Ukraine has awakened European NATO member states, particularly those in Scandinavia to the real threat from Russia, a threat greater than at any time since the 1940s. Trump and his Republican constituency are the people who are guilty of complacency, imagining as they do that the United States can avoid direct involvement in a major war through a policy of appeasement. It has been announced recently that US nuclear weapons are being deployed to UK, they will be stored at RAF Lakenheath. These are obsolete B61 free fall bombs, carried by F35 manned tactical fighters which would not survive long enough to reach their targets if these were in Russia. NATO needs to develop and deploy new weapon systems in order to obtain a credible capability for nuclear warfare at all levels from battlefield tactical to strategic. Since the primary requirement is for weapons suitable for use in the context of a war on the European continent it would be logical if this were a European initiative. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pl … r-BB1hqDrv An air-launched stand-off missile with a nuclear warhead, perhaps based on the successful MBDA Storm Shadow would be desirable as would a short range weapon for battlefield use, which would probably be based on an existing artillery rocket system such as MLRS or HIMARS. European nuclear deterrence should have a broader base than at present. I think that Sweden, Germany and Italy should become nuclear powers. Feb 11 24 05:05 am Link The 2700 ton Russian landing ship Cesar Kunikov has now become the latest victim of Ukraine's sea drones; https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ru … &ei=24 video here; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ … ack-crimea Nobody had heard of sea drones before the beginning of the Ukraine war, but the lethality they are demonstrating in night attacks on Russian warships is something that NATO navies cannot ignore. This effectiveness derives in part from the difficulty of tracking a small moving object on the sea surface by radar, when waves give similar returns. An incoming missile is an easier target in this respect. Feb 14 24 06:26 am Link It's clear that there are people in Congress who regard Russia as their best friend and trading partner when it comes to arms sales particularly... https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/tr … &ei=12 I would say that was closer to the truth before the war than now. The Ukraine war has exposed weaknesses in NATO's doctrine, particularly it's over-reliance on air power. US made manned tactical fighters like the F35 now appear to be, if not a complete waste of money, then an expensive indulgence when older aircraft like the Ukrainians' Su24 are with modification equally effective as launch platforms for stand-off air-to-ground weapons, this being the only tactical role that manned aircraft now seem to be capable of performing without suffering a prohibitive loss rate. The increasing vulnerability of manned aircraft to ground based air defenses also tends to reduce the need for manned aircraft in the air-to-air role. Feb 14 24 07:11 am Link Elon Musk says that Russia is winning the Ukraine war; https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … r-BB1igmHO I think this is politicking on his part. Russia has lost 3000 tanks since the beginning of the Ukraine war, most of their modern fleet and they are now having to recondition and put into service vehicles from the 1950s and 1960s; https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ru … r-BB1ifnI1 The old Russian tanks like the T55, T62 and T72 are, as was demonstrated in the 1991 Gulf War, largely ineffective in combat against the M1 Abrams and comparable vehicles produced by NATO countries. Russia may continue fighting for years, but at a technological disadvantage and with heavy losses. European NATO member states have increased their support to Ukraine, compensating for the shortfall in support from the US. Europe stands with Ukraine. There will be no victory for Russia in this war, and no return to the conspiratorial Cold War politics of the 1970s and 1980s. Feb 15 24 03:19 am Link Putin says that he would prefer Biden re-elected over Trump; https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/pu … r-BB1il1Yo This is clearly a lie, the Biden administration has provided around $75 billion worth of military assistance to Ukraine whereas Trump's big plan is to blackmail everybody into conceding Russia's territorial claims over Ukraine, so obviously Putin wants to see Trump re-elected president. But Trump and Putin are both assuming a degree of US dominance in the defense sector that does not exist in reality. In Putin's case this is habitual, he is always whining about NATO being a front for US imperialism as we might expect from an ex-KGB communist, whereas Trump is ignorant of military matters and simply assumes whatever is most convenient for his political agenda. Feb 15 24 12:46 pm Link Donald Trumps recent remarks on the subject of nuclear weapons, coming soon after nuclear threats by Putin and other Russian politicians, are suggestive of a shared political agenda; https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/do … r-BB1iGNPG The ability to destroy New York and South Carolina simultaneously is far beyond the capacity of any single nuclear warhead known to exist anywhere. The most powerful historical US bomb, the 25Mt B41 used by the USAF from 1961 until 1976 had an approximate 15 mile radius of total destruction of residential buildings from ground zero, and 8 miles against against reinforced concrete structures; https://infogalactic.com/info/B41_nuclear_bomb Feb 23 24 04:03 am Link JSouthworth wrote: You're really funny. One Poseidon torpedo is enough to blow Miami and California to hell. And at the same time, the boat does not need to approach the shores of America at all. Is Putin scaring you with a nuclear war?! Ha.. ha..ha...That's the shit they tell you and Europe. Feb 28 24 06:25 am Link Marina_U wrote: You mean this? Feb 28 24 09:46 am Link The use of a liquid metal cooled reactor in the Poseidon/Status-6 is interesting. The Soviets first used this type of nuclear propulsion in the Alfa class attack submarines, but there were serious technical issues associated with it; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarine The reactor could not be completely shut down because this would have resulted in the liquid metal coolant solidifying around the control rods inside the reactor vessel, making it impossible to restart, unless an external heat source was provided to prevent this from happening. Feb 29 24 03:07 am Link The German Gepard anti-aircraft gun system is proving effective in Ukraine; https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ORM=VRDGAR Mar 01 24 06:42 am Link This article got my attention because of the title photo of a Ukrainian soldier using a German-supplied MG3 machinegun. This weapon is virtually identical to the MG42 used by the German Army in World War Two, with minor changes mainly involving the caliber (MG3 is 7.62mm X 51 NATO, the MG42 was 7.92mm X 57 Mauser) and the bolt, with the MG3 having alternative light and heavy bolts to produce different rates of fire. The MG42 was famous for it's high rate of fire, up to 1500 rpm. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ru … &ei=20 This weapon features prominently in Sergio Leone's 1971 movie Duck you Sucker aka A Fistful of Dynamite. This is set against the background of the 1913-1914 Mexican revolution, which pre-dated production of the MG42 by about 28 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoriano_Huerta#Legacy Mar 06 24 04:10 am Link Good article here with some Ukrainian drone video; https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/br … r-BB1jnEn6 Mar 07 24 03:21 am Link Amid all the talk of nuclear warfare, there is controversy over the cost of replacing the Royal Navy's ballistic missile submarines with a new class armed with the same Trident 2 D5 missiles; https://bylinetimes.com/2024/03/08/cost … -increase/ Would it be possible to have a more effective nuclear deterrent without the enormous cost and problems of communication and psychological stress on the crews associated with ballistic missile submarines? An article here suggests that the invulnerability of ballistic missile submarines to detection and destruction may be illusory; https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/s … hnologies/ It has been claimed that radar equipped satellites can track a submerged submarine by the wake it produces on the surface. The Trident D5 missile has a maximum range of 7500 miles, the distance from London to Beijing is 5080 miles, and to Pyongyang 5408 miles so if the submarines never left port the missiles would still be able to strike any likely target. If we had 150 Trident D5 missiles on mobile launchers, moving around between storage facilities in tunnels and hardened shelters, and another 100 in hardened silos, we would then be able to launch at least 100 and possibly as many as 250 missiles in a "launch on warning" nuclear strike as opposed to 16 at some time after a nuclear attack on the UK. The most obvious locations for the silos would be uninhabited islands off the UK mainland such as North Rona and St Kilda. Meanwhile in Ukraine, a new defensive line is being constructed to resist a potential Russian offensive toward Kharkiv; https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/why … &ei=35 Mar 19 24 04:49 am Link An article here quotes a UK Ministry of Defence report on the war in Ukraine which emphasises the role of Russian aviation; https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ru … r-BB1klUrc The intermittent role being played by the Russian Long Range Aviation in Ukraine is objectively quite marginal; their air-launched missiles offer no real operational advantages over ground based cruise and ballistic missile systems in this context, and the aircraft are very expensive to maintain and operate. So this report has probably been designed, or contrived to support a recent RAF bid for the UK's nuclear deterrent. An air to ground stand-off missile with a nuclear warhead, perhaps based on the successful MBDA Storm Shadow might be useful in a theatre level tactical role. But as the Ukraine War has shown, manned aircraft are too vulnerable, whether in the air or on the ground at their bases to be taken very seriously as a strategic nuclear deterrent force. The success rate of conventionally armed cruise and ballistic missiles against air defense systems also appears to be quite low. A high performance, stealth drone aircraft or cruise missile with a nuclear warhead is feasible and has some advantages over ballistic missiles. Since it flies a one-way mission, it's striking range can be much greater than that of a similar sized manned aircraft and it's range/payload capability may be superior to that of a ballistic missile of similar launch weight. To illustrate this, the US SM-62 Snark strategic cruise missile of the 1950s to 1960s had a starting weight of 60,000 lbs, including a 6500lb nuclear warhead for a range of 5500 nm; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-62_Snark By comparison, the Minuteman II ICBM had a similar starting weight and range but with a much smaller 831 lb warhead; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman Mar 22 24 06:29 am Link Hardly a week seems to go by without further threats of nuclear war from the Putin regime, recently a senior Russian propagandist has threatened to submerge the UK under a radioactive tidal wave; https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/pu … b&ei=6 The vaunted Poseidon nuclear torpedo seems an impractical concept, once launched there would be no guarantee that it would reach it's target or that it would not develop a guidance fault and destroy Kaliningrad or Sevastopol. Being nuclear powered with unlimited range, it could potentially turn up anywhere. And if the use of such a weapon could only be contemplated in a situation in which most Russian cities had already been destroyed, there is a question of who it is intended to deter. The reason they are making these threats is obviously that they think some people will be intimidated by them but equally obviously, an attack on the UK or the US with strategic nuclear weapons would bring retaliation which nether Russia or the Putin regime would survive. The paranoia is on Putin's part, he talks about a threat to the existence of Russia where there is none and he tries to frame the war in Ukraine as a conflict between Russia and the West, when it is not, although it is generally understood in the NATO countries that a war with Russia may be unavoidable, if the Putin regime continues it's aggressive expansionism. The use of tactical nuclear weapons is an aspect of modern warfare which NATO ground and air forces should be prepared for and equipped for both in the offensive and defensive roles. Apr 29 24 05:53 am Link |
