Russia-Ukraine War 2022 - Page 259 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

By late
#15230399
Wels wrote:
The situation in the east is very difficult, however intel shows that Russia's assault is once more not going as planned, and ukrainian defenses are holding.
Maybe it will be better for ukrainian troops to make a retreat to not being encircled, and change to asymmetrical warfare again, while at the same time hammering Putler's forces from a safer distance.



The clock is ticking, it's a logistical race for both sides to try and upset the current balance of forces.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15230400
Rugoz wrote:What is it with you Putler-lovers always salivating over nuclear weapons.

Who's salivating over nuclear weapons?

It's no secret that the provision of dual-use ballistic missiles to Ukraine - or any of the Eastern states, for that matter - has been a red line for Russia; or that the US offered to provide the missiles to Ukraine on February 19 at the Berlin security conference where the comedian said he would arm them with homegrown nuclear warheads.

You called it a rhetorical flourish.

The US rowed back.





:lol:
By Rugoz
#15230402
ingliz wrote:Who's salivating over nuclear weapons?


Oh please. You couldn't be more obvious.

ingliz wrote:It's no secret that the provision of dual-use ballistic missiles to Ukraine.


MLRS will be used by Ukraine as a battlefield weapon, not to deliver nukes. You know it and everybody else knows it.

You're a fucking jerk.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15230407
Politics_Observer wrote:What is your source for this information? I knew we were considering it, but the Biden Administration hadn't given the final approval, last time I check and so far from what I can read on the internet.


Don't recall, but doing another search, it looks like they are prepping to approve still.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15230409
Rugoz wrote:MLRS will be used by Ukraine as a battlefield weapon, not to deliver nukes. You know it and everybody else knows it.


Apparently these MLRS's have a range of up to 300km more or less.

Russia is warning against these because they don't want Russian soil attacked. Why do they get to demand that? fucking morons. Fuck Putin.
#15230411
We all have to realize that like the majority of Russian people, the Russian trolls on this site are not very smart and pretty cowardly. There was a time when the Russian army was reasonably brave but never a time when it was disciplined or well trained. It is a blunt instrument and mostly hollow. It is completely ill prepared to fight a determined enemy on a modern battlefield.

So why do the trolls keep talking about nukes? Because they are terrified. They know that their army is taking a drubbing and that their country will be weakened for a couple of generations. Nuclear weapons are the weapons of last resort. The only time they work as offensive weapons is when the enemy does not have them or is not protected by them. What are the facts:

The much ballyhooed Russian Army, with reserves and equipment to make it seem quite large, is actually just a moderate regional power. It lacks transport. Its leadership is a joke. It is running out of supplies. It is deploying tanks build 60 years ago and just taken out of storage. Imagine how well those tankers are. Its air force can't establish air superiority over a nation with a tiny air force. Its navy lost its flagship to a country without a navy. It is facing an enemy equipped with the next to the most recent weaponry in pretty much unlimited quantities. Meanwhile Russia's famous KH101's are experiencing north of 60% failure rate. They are simply running out of precision guided munitions and must keep some in case NATO gets really pissed at them. They are using iron bombs now and taking aircraft losses as a result. The new MLRS will put many of Russia's weapons production facilities, already crippled by sanctions, within range of Ukraine's artillery.

This is not to say that Russia is no longer a threat to Ukraine. It is. It may even prevail in achieving some modified goal. But the cost Russia is paying is devastating. It is virtually ensuring that it will be nothing but a minor regional power, without any expeditionary capabilities for a couple of generations. It turns out its "vast" power was a ruse and Putin has squandered what little there was of it. Russia is no longer a world power either economically or militarily. It is just maybe secon world petro state.

So Igor, Ingliz and Independent_Srpska are taking nukes because, on the world stage that is all Russia has left. It is a defeated conventional force that has only managed to make its perceived enemies MUCH more powerful than before this mess.

But that is the oddest thing of all. Russia had no enemies before this. NATO was no threat to Russia because it did not have any reason to be. Ukraine was no threat. China was a bigger threat than any of its other neighbors and China was an ally. And Russia was getting richer on the back of petrodollars. There was a recession looming which would have taken the west down a peg for a time. The cold, hard, dispassionate conclusion is that Russia did exactly the wrong thing, at exactly the wrong time. It is a monumental failure in leadership on the part of Putin and his generals. Russia's best hope for the future is regime change but the Russian people are too bovine to do it. So Russia will remain North Korea with nukes.
#15230419
Drlee wrote:Because they are terrified.

You fight the war you can win.

According to the CIA, the Soviets, in the period between 1970-1979, outspent the Americans by three-fold in land forces procurement. The assumption was that NATO would respond with nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack from the Warsaw Pact.


:)
#15230420
ingliz wrote:
You fight the war you can win.

According to the CIA, the Soviets, in the period between 1970-1979, outspent the Americans by three-fold in land forces procurement. The assumption was that NATO would respond with nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack from the Warsaw Pact.




Russia had the same problems back then. They needed a non-nuclear military much larger than ours because they knew they'd get chewed up something awful.

Oh, and if this is winning, I'd hate to see you lose.
#15230426
Drlee wrote:the Russian trolls on this site

What Russian trolls? We have a thriving Bosnian Serb community and a Maltese Leninist here from Putin's wonderland.

ImageImage
#15230472
^^ :violin: :lol:

So, Fanboys, tell me...is it allowed to write about American military decline in your NATO matrix?
Is this guy from the Financial Times gonna be fired?

Still Top Gun? What Tom Cruise’s new movie tells us about American power

The film reflects anxiety over the US’s relative decline in the face of China’s high-tech military might


https://www.ft.com/content/26ebe826-08d ... 3be1f8ca5c
#15230481
^ i take it that merely shows that Hollywood is afraid of losing money when trying to show this Cruise rubbish and other films in China. This also shows in SciFi films. I always wondered whether there is intelligent life.
In Hollywood.
User avatar
By Beren
#15230483
Independent_Srpska wrote:Is this guy from the Financial Times gonna be fired?

I guess he isn't if quite a lot people subscribe to FT to read his article.
#15230489
Wels wrote:^ i take it that merely shows that Hollywood is afraid of losing money when trying to show this Cruise rubbish and other films in China. This also shows in SciFi films. I always wondered whether there is intelligent life.
In Hollywood.

In this movie the technologically most advanced and strongest ever military power, or empire, is posturing as if it's the Republic from the Star Wars franchise. :lol:
User avatar
By Rancid
#15230537
Beren wrote:What Russian trolls? We have a thriving Bosnian Serb community and a Maltese Leninist here from Putin's wonderland.


Which makes me wonder if these guys are clinical retards.
User avatar
By Wels
#15230573
"NATO is no longer bound by past commitments to hold back from deploying its forces in eastern Europe, the US-led alliance's deputy secretary general said Sunday.

Moscow itself has “voided of any content” the NATO-Russia Founding Act, by attacking Ukraine and halting dialogue with the alliance.

Under the 1997 Founding Act, intended to reset the relationship between Russia and the Alliance, both sides agreed to work to “prevent any potentially threatening build-up of conventional forces in agreed regions of Europe, to include Central and Eastern Europe”.

“They took decisions, they made obligations there not to aggress neighbours, which they are doing, and to have regular consultations with NATO, which they don't,” said Geoana, speaking in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius.

Russia, he said, had effectively moved away from the terms of the 1997 agreement."


About time.
#15230585
Wels wrote:"NATO is no longer bound by past commitments to hold back from deploying its forces in eastern Europe, the US-led alliance's deputy secretary general said Sunday.

Moscow itself has “voided of any content” the NATO-Russia Founding Act, by attacking Ukraine and halting dialogue with the alliance.

Under the 1997 Founding Act, intended to reset the relationship between Russia and the Alliance, both sides agreed to work to “prevent any potentially threatening build-up of conventional forces in agreed regions of Europe, to include Central and Eastern Europe”.

“They took decisions, they made obligations there not to aggress neighbours, which they are doing, and to have regular consultations with NATO, which they don't,” said Geoana, speaking in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius.

Russia, he said, had effectively moved away from the terms of the 1997 agreement."


About time.


Ah, geez, do not tell the NATO decided not to keep its word?! :lol: :lol: :lol:
#15230592
Independent_Srpska wrote:Ah, geez, do not tell the NATO decided not to keep its word?! :lol: :lol: :lol:


What happened to Budapest agreement? Don't pin in on NATO when Budapest was broken 2 times already by Russia and NATO annulled its side only after the 2nd time.
#15230594
Oh yeah, Biden gramps gonna send those MLRS and HIMMARS systems I hope then most offensives should be halted if enough are sent. 20-30 should be enough for stopping the severodonetsk and general Donetsk problem. If Ukraine gets more than a real offensive should not be far behind.
#15230595
@JohnRawls

Yeah, the NATO is a defensive pact, without single defensive action in 70 years of existence. It is known for its honor and firm word :D It bears responsibility for murders of millions of people after WW2.
They are nothing to be blamed for.

They just destroyed international order by its animalistic aggression on Yugoslavia in 1999, and they murdered like tens of millions of people world wide.
Nothing to blame, and nothing to see. Business as usual ....for a pack of hyenas.
#15230596
Independent_Srpska wrote:@JohnRawls

Yeah, the NATO is a defensive pact,

without single defensive action in 70 years of existence.

It is known for its honor and firm word

It bears responsibility for murders of millions of people after WW2.


They just destroyed international order by its animalistic aggression on Yugoslavia in 1999,


Nothing to blame, and nothing to see. Business as usual ....for a pack of hyenas.



Yup.

It was intended to deter Soviet Russia, and what you just said is that it was a success.

Every alliance comes with a price tag that isn't money. But it kept WW3 from happening, and that's as big as a big, hairy deal gets. So, while you aren't totally wrong, between your exaggeration, and your failure or ignorance of what else was going on... your comment is bootless.

Let's go back further. Yugoslavia had been bilking the West for a generation. When the truth came out, things went downhill quickly. The emergence of ethnic violence was disappointing, but not exactly a surprise. The 'leaders' were incompetent, corrupt, thugs. Then there is the country you never blame, that was stirring the pot.

You see, we were worried the violence would spread. We could also see this settling into a violence that could last for centuries. Which was not good for anybody.

It took years to get the fighting to stop, but we finally got them to play nice...
Last edited by late on 30 May 2022 10:21, edited 2 times in total.
  • 1
  • 257
  • 258
  • 259
  • 260
  • 261
  • 317

@Drlee @BlutoSays Has the Texas law been s[…]

Krugman on Putin

GDP and GDP per capita do not show how wealth is […]

From recollection, people didn't want to vote in C[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Taking 5-10 kilometres in 2-3 months while loosin[…]