141–150 of 372 posts
This is really going to screw Russia for generations. Every young Russian I know has either already left, plans to leave, or has to stay but hates their leader. You don't get your country to turn into a superpower by losing the most educated and skilled of the young generations. I only hope as things get more desperate he doesn't feel trapped lash out with the nukes.
Quoted post unavailable.
Is there any scenario from this point onwards, any at all that results in Russia coming out stronger once the smoke clears? Because I can't see any. Seems to me like the Russian govt are now in a situation where they have no choice but to see this thing through just to try and save face.
Mobilization could be a sign that it's no longer about face but about ass.
It is usually recommended here to read information from sources, here: Address by the President of the Russian Federation (English transcript) [1] (video in Russian, no subs)[2] [1] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69390 [2] http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69390
As I have said, we are talking about partial mobilisation. In other words, only military reservists, primarily those who served in the armed forces and have specific military occupational specialties and corresponding experience, will be called up.
Additionally, the Executive Order on partial mobilisation also stipulates additional measures for the fulfilment of the state defence order. The heads of defence industry enterprises will be directly responsible for attaining the goals of increasing the production of weapons and military equipment and using additional production facilities for this purpose. At the same time, the Government must address without any delay all aspects of material, resource and financial support for our defence enterprises.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To push to the extreme, you'd have to mobilize every single Russian to have a "full" mobilization. So anything short of that is a "partial" mobilization, which would be basically be any actual mobilization.
A full mobilisation would imply mobilising all the people who can be mobilised not every single Russian. That’s not what’s happening here hence the partial.
Their main propaganda news channel has already said (incorrectly) that they are already fighting NATO and US troops in the breakaway areas. Is it time to make this a reality? I really don't see it ending without it happening. russia has shown that it has no regard for the suffering of any troops of any nationality. So purely from a population perspective, Ukraine will fail eventually unless they can effectively force…
A direct war between NATO and Russia will go nuclear and cause tens of millions of casualties in the best case If you want to go and fight, do it yourself
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they could conquer Ukraine and effectively quell unrest, the Federation could be said to have come out stronger. That is very unlikely though, with the Ukrainian army getting effective support. If they manage to hold the land bridge to Krim and negotiate a cease-fire, it can be argued that they had limited success in their objectives. But at a huge economic and humanitarian cost. And in a nuclear war, nobody wins.…
Would the West intervene in a nuclear war limited to Ukrainian territory?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they could conquer Ukraine and effectively quell unrest, the Federation could be said to have come out stronger. That is very unlikely though, with the Ukrainian army getting effective support. If they manage to hold the land bridge to Krim and negotiate a cease-fire, it can be argued that they had limited success in their objectives. But at a huge economic and humanitarian cost. And in a nuclear war, nobody wins.…
Would the West intervene in a nuclear war limited to Ukrainian territory?
On the other side, I don't know who would intervene. The risk of further escalation might lead to the acceptance of nuclear genocide limited to Ukraine. And Ukrainian capitulation would be swift if Russia demonstrated they were willing to attack the population with nuclear bombs. The whole scenario is difficult to imagine. The last time civilians got nuked is 77 years ago. And the Japanese people had nobody who could have retaliated for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling Ukraine "The Ukraine" is a Russian tactic to make Ukraine seem less like a country and more like a region. Quoting from wikipedia: > However, since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, [calling Ukraine "The Ukraine"] has become politicised and is now rarer, and style guides advise against its use. US ambassador William Taylor said that using "the Ukraine" implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.…
> Calling Ukraine "The Ukraine" is a Russian tactic... This is just wrong. If you search for the word Ukraine on the Russian government site kremlin.ru (there is an English-language version), you will find that this word is used there without the article. I am sure you'll get the same results if you search RT's web site. The article isn't the Russians' doing, especially given that there aren't any articles in most Sl…
"Ukraine" doesn't mean borderland, it's another Russian attitude with the aim to humiliate Ukrainian nation. You can also look at the map and see who is really a borderland of the civilized world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nukes are a possibility, but MAD has stopped us all using them for many years so far. As far as conventional arms go: Russia has quite a few planes, tanks, and artillery; however, so long as the USA wills it, the Ukraine will have more anti-air missiles, more anti-tank munitions, and more long-range rockets. In any long-range fight, being able to locate your enemy is key; the pentagons ability to identify the locatio…
Does MAD really protect Ukraine? Edit: suppose the old man has properly lost it. If Putin drops a tactical nuke on a Ukranian military position, will Nato really respond in kind? Seems like damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.