https://www.ft.com/content/b5b1b3d7-ca51-482a-a028-45a81816559a

"But Ukraine's lack of robust, layered defensive lines is another reason the Russian army has been able to steadily press ahead and capture smaller swaths of territory along the 1,000km frontline."

https://www.ft.com/content/b5b1b3d7-ca51-482a-a028-45a81816559a

Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

There are a lot of conspiracy theories swirling around claiming that this may be another Putin false flag, like the apartment bombings he carried out in order to justify the chechen war.

🤔 pic.twitter.com/suDA7Mc2bt

— Igor Kyivskyi (@Igor_from_Kyiv_) March 26, 2024

I don't put much stock in this stuff any more than I do the baseless conspiracy theories that Russian shills are undoubtedly parroting on BI.

I tend to think this is most likely what people think it is - an ISIS attack as a result of decades of Russian attacks on Islamic people.

Putin will continue to spout his firehose of falsehoods, but it's tough for him when even his corrupt puppet allies are disproving his narratives. WIll Lukashenko find himself on the wrong side of a window soon?

"The terrorists were captured while fleeing to Belarus, not Ukraine"
"If they didn't believe the American intelligence, they should have had their own intelligence"
But they dont have.
Full aggression to Ukraine and ISIS disasters are caused by Putin's dictatorial character.… pic.twitter.com/F2CvzqtSyW

— Doktor Klein 🇪🇸 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 (@Doktor_Klein) March 26, 2024

Putin's ally, Belarus President Lukashenko, contradicts Putin to say that the ISIS attackers of the Moscow concert hall first tried to flee to Belarus and turned toward Ukraine only when they couldn't get into Belarus. Oops. https://t.co/0iwR1vlzoL

— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) March 27, 2024

---

The simplest and most obvious answers are usually the most correct answers. Like you, I think the simplest answer is that ISIS found an opportunity to make headlines again, get publicity, and commit terror against a country they believe as an enemy to their world domination vision..

---

The simplest and most obvious answer is that the CIA and MI6 always have a back story that's designed to discredit "inconvenient truths," especially when they commit acts of terrorism.

After the U.S. destroyed the Nordstream pipelines -- and rather quickly after Seymour Hersh's insider account -- they came up with the rather implausible story about a band of Ukrainians on a yacht:

Quote:

---

German media reported then that five men and a woman used a yacht hired by a Ukrainian-owned company in Poland to carry out the attack, and that the vessel set off from the German port of Rostock.
-- AP News

---

The fake counter-story raises doubt & diminishes the impact of the "inconvenient truth" in the critical days after the event. As time passes, sham Western "investigations" prove inconclusive, and the Western establishment NeoCons continue, time after time, to avoid any accountability for their crimes.

As I mentioned in a previous post, all 3 of the sham "investigations" of the Nordstream sabotage ended without coming to any conclusion, without naming a perpetrator, and without revealing the evidence gathered.

Sweden closes probe into explosions on Nord Stream pipelines, saying it doesn't have jurisdiction

As I also pointed out weeks ago, Russia & China initiated a UN Security Council Resolution to investigate the Nordstream sabotage. The Resolution failed, with 14 members (all U.S. puppets) abstaining -- many of them citing the ongoing investigations by Germany, Denmark, and Sweden (which have concluded, with no findings).

There's still no evidence -- other than the CIA back story (which is pure heresay) -- to refute the Russian account. Instead of killing the gunmen on the spot, Russian investigators followed them to the Ukrainian border, while monitoring their communications.

Like I said -- they have all the phones for the gunmen, the 11 support people in Moscow, and the 40 people in Turkey. They've already traced the comms back to the Ukrainian intelligence HQ in Kyiv, and they've destroyed the building with a missile.

As many have pointed out, the alleged "ISIS terrorists" are clearly NOT Islamic fundamentalists. First, they're raising their Left fingers for the Shahadah, which no true Islamic fundamentalist would ever do. Then, their faces are blurred -- so they expected to survive (and enjoy their reported $5500 payout).



I'm guessing that there were no true ISIS warriors willing to lay down their lives as martyrs to help the U.S./NATO/CIA.

One of the more incriminating bits of circumstantial evidence, though, is John Kirby's flat denial of any Ukrainian involvement -- this while the concert hall was still in flames. Yes, focus on our fake ISIS terrorists! It's ISIS-K! It's ISIS-K!!!

---

I won't go into deep analysis of all these conspiracy theories.

I will just say this.

Either CIA is so incompetent that some rando on BI can find out about their secret activities, and therefore tje CIA doesn't really have the talents to do all the things you say they do or

they are in fact talented and some rando conspiracy theorist on BI Off Topic has no idea what they actually are doing.

---

LOL. this. Like these guys are so stupid they're going to leave an obvious trail. If you were planning something like this, you'd be like "first and foremost, we can't get caught". Even people who post on this forum would know that. Hell, even I would know it!

The only people I can think of off-hand that think they can kill hundreds of civilians without worrying about getting caught because there won't be any repercussions are Putin and the IDF. Ironically, they're not even stupid!

---

The US government actively warned people in Moscow that a terror attack might be coming, in a very public way. If the CIA was really behind this then I cannot fathom why they would allow that to happen. You don't publicize your secret missions!

British General Admits UK Couldn’t Fight Russia for More Than 2 Months

From @DecampDave

A British general admitted on Tuesday that the UK couldn’t handle a war with Russia for more than two months as London has significantly depleted its military stockpiles by arming Ukraine.… pic.twitter.com/SbVWBEfhuY

— Kyle Anzalone (@KyleAnzalone_) March 29, 2024

Spy agencies skew intelligence to please the White House, new Pentagon-backed study findshttps://t.co/UH1S9CuHcd

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) March 29, 2024

smh said:

---

> And while tankies will rage on about US meddling, they will never ever criticize Russia for anything it does whether it's attacking US democracy or..

tnx u2s for a new word, at least for me. wikipedia's def..
> Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support acts of repression by such regimes or their allies. More specifically, the term has been applied to those who express support for one-party Marxist-Leninist socialist republics, whether contemporary or historical.

---

I think this is a bit dated - modern tankies support Putin and basically believe any anti-American propaganda or rhetoric.

One of the key qualities of tankies is that no matter how many times they've been deceived by risible propaganda, they continue to whole-heartedly amplify it. Rather than course-correcting when proven wrong, they just lean harder into the nonsense. They seem to be self-radicalizing.

The one thing that is crystal clear is that the nuttier they get, the farther they are from accomplishing whatever they think their true goals are. Helping elect Trump certainly won't get them whatever list of progressive wins they think they want, but all the tankies are doing their best to help Trump now.

"Both major political parties have hit rock bottom, IMO, and 2024 represents our best chance to penalize both for destroying America."

That is a text book false equivalency argument and it would be fun to see a line item by line analysis with supporting evidence cited under the respective line items.

One of my favorite false equivalence arguments is that the media are equal liars on both sides. Well, when MSNBC writes a check for a whisker under $800,000,000 to settle a defamation case (because it feared a jury would award more) like Fox News did, and fires the biggest cash cow in its political talk show lineup (Tucker Carlson) like Fox News did for fear it would have to write more checks because of his incessant lying, then you might convince me the media outlets representing the opposite political poles in America are equal liars.

I once read that the difference between MSNBC and Fox News is that MSNBC takes the facts and passes them through a Progressive filter whereas Fox News just simply makes sh@it up.

With regard to the political parties being equally bad, only one party is the first in history to deny the legitimacy of a presidential election that it lost, only one party promoted the January 6 Insurrection, and only one party is controlled by and will nominate as it's candidate for POTUS, a twice-impeached, four-time indicted, insurrection-inciting , Sexual Abuser and business fraud adjudged former president……who thinks this is a smart thing to re-publish, especially when you take into consideration the limited mental capacity of a significant portion of his hateful base:

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump-posts-image-of-joe-biden-kidnapped-and-bound-with-rope



* Threatening the president of the United States is a federal felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict great bodily harm upon the president of the United States".
United States. Supreme Court; Walter Malins Rose (1970). United States Supreme Court Reports. LEXIS Law Pub. p. 665. Retrieved 25 July 2017. 18 USC 871(a), making it a felony to knowingly and wilfully threaten the President of the United States, initially requires the government to prove a true "threat.
18 U.S.C. 871
"U.S.C. Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE". www.gpo.gov. Retrieved 2015-08-07.
"18 U.S. Code 3559 - Sentencing classification of offenses | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute". www.law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2015-08-07.

I believe Cal88 educated us here about glide bombs.

Business Insider: Ukraine says Russia in less than a week hit it with 700 glide bombs, weapons that can really only be beaten by killing the planes

Glide bombs have seen heavy use in the war, allowing Russia to hit Ukraine from safer distances.

"Shooting down the fighter-bombers means putting precious air defenses closer to the front, where they'll be at greater risk. It also means pulling stretched capabilities away from other areas. Ukrainian air defenses also don't have enough ammo.

"The only way to counter this barbaric tactic is to shoot down aircraft that drop these bombs, which requires a sufficient number of modern air defense systems at the front," Kuleba said, noting that "strong air defense on the front line would allow our troops not only not to lose ground, but also to force Russians to retreat." "

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-hit-ukraine-hundreds-of-glide-bombs-less-than-week-2024-3

movielover said:

---

I believe Cal88 educated us here about glide bombs.

Business Insider: Ukraine says Russia in less than a week hit it with 700 glide bombs, weapons that can really only be beaten by killing the planes

Glide bombs have seen heavy use in the war, allowing Russia to hit Ukraine from safer distances.

"Shooting down the fighter-bombers means putting precious air defenses closer to the front, where they'll be at greater risk. It also means pulling stretched capabilities away from other areas. Ukrainian air defenses also don't have enough ammo.

"The only way to counter this barbaric tactic is to shoot down aircraft that drop these bombs, which requires a sufficient number of modern air defense systems at the front," Kuleba said, noting that "strong air defense on the front line would allow our troops not only not to lose ground, but also to force Russians to retreat." "

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-hit-ukraine-hundreds-of-glide-bombs-less-than-week-2024-3

---

In terms of glide bomb usage, the Russians are only constrained by the number or air sorties they can manage, as they have a nearly limitless glide bomb capacity, they can turn a dumb bomb into a smart one by rigging it with a cheap winged kit. Ukraine can no longer hold on to its fortified positions, with the mid/large 1,500kg glide bombs creating 50ft craters.

According to a Russian source, the Russian Air Force has started using FAB-1500 bombs with a glide system.

With an accuracy of about five meters, the crater after the explosion of the bomb is about fifteen meters in diameter, and the affected area is more than two square… pic.twitter.com/zBR5vIW7XP

— dana (@dana916) September 19, 2023

This has been one of several gamechangers for the Russians in terms of technologies they have managed to develop and implement in large scale since the start of the war (Lancet and Geran drones etc). The main aspect of these new weapons is that they are cheap and easy to mass produce.

Two years in, 45 4-star generals haven't figured out how to manufacture large-scale ammunitions.

I read a UK military leader said they couldn't fight Russia for more than two months. They'd run out of ammo and weapons. It also seems Russia has a huge cost advantage.

With all the bluster from the West, Putin has to also prepare for WWIII. Let's hope it never goes there.

Cal88, question on the unthinkable nuclear war. Let's say Biden's regime decides to launch a 'limited' nuclear strike. They still launch 5 or 10 'limited' bombs, right? And then Russia unloads 10 or 20 intercontinental missiles, maybe hitting Europe and America - I thought I was told they don't send 1 or 2 because many will likely be shot down, so they want 2-4 to get through. So Chicago or Miami is hit, and then mutually assured destruction is launched by both sides from submarines.

Is this roughly correct?

Reminder, NATO general secretary explained why Ukraine was invaded.

Hence they knew 6 months before.

pic.twitter.com/WdGjkVJEk9

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) March 30, 2024

movielover said:

---

Two years in, 45 4-star generals haven't figured out how to manufacture large-scale ammunitions.

I read a UK military leader said they couldn't fight Russia for more than two months. They'd run out of ammo and weapons. It also seems Russia has a huge cost advantage.

With all the bluster from the West, Putin has to also prepare for WWIII. Let's hope it never goes there.

Cal88, question on the unthinkable nuclear war. Let's say Biden's regime decides to launch a 'limited' nuclear strike. They still launch 5 or 10 'limited' bombs, right? And then Russia unloads 10 or 20 intercontinental missiles, maybe hitting Europe and America - I thought I was told they don't send 1 or 2 because many will likely be shot down, so they want 2-4 to get through. So Chicago or Miami is hit, and then mutually assured destruction is launched by both sides from submarines.

Is this roughly correct?

---

"Let's say Biden's regime decides to launch a "limited" nuclear strike."

Do you really think there is even a remote possibility of this happening? Half of the appeal of Biden is that at least he's a sane, seasoned professional, who's not going to go off the rails and do something bat s*** crazy.

movielover said:

---

Two years in, 45 4-star generals haven't figured out how to manufacture large-scale ammunitions.

I read a UK military leader said they couldn't fight Russia for more than two months. They'd run out of ammo and weapons. It also seems Russia has a huge cost advantage.

With all the bluster from the West, Putin has to also prepare for WWIII. Let's hope it never goes there.

Cal88, question on the unthinkable nuclear war. Let's say Biden's regime decides to launch a 'limited' nuclear strike. They still launch 5 or 10 'limited' bombs, right? And then Russia unloads 10 or 20 intercontinental missiles, maybe hitting Europe and America - I thought I was told they don't send 1 or 2 because many will likely be shot down, so they want 2-4 to get through. So Chicago or Miami is hit, and then mutually assured destruction is launched by both sides from submarines.

Is this roughly correct?

---

Yes, there is no such a thing as a "limited" nuclear strike, it's armageddon the moment that pandora's box is open...

Quote:

---

"Let's say Biden's regime decides to launch a "limited" nuclear strike."

Do you really think there is even a remote possibility of this happening? Half of the appeal of Biden is that at least he's a sane, seasoned professional, who's not going to go off the rails and do something bat s*** crazy.

---

The question here would be the use of tactical nukes on the front by NATO, who is the losing party. The winning party doesn't have any incentive to use nukes.

Russia would use nukes if their territory were overrun by a combined NATO force, though as it stands that is very unlikely, except for the Kaliningrad exclave, where the Russians are vulnerable to a NATO attack, as they cannot resupply there. NATO as well would resort to nukes if Russia rolled into Poland.

Big C said:

---

"Let's say Biden's regime decides to launch a "limited" nuclear strike."

Do you really think there is even a remote possibility of this happening? Half of the appeal of Biden is that at least he's a sane, seasoned professional, who's not going to go off the rails and do something bat s*** crazy.

---

No one has ever called them useful geniuses.

Big C said:

---

movielover said:

---

Two years in, 45 4-star generals haven't figured out how to manufacture large-scale ammunitions.

I read a UK military leader said they couldn't fight Russia for more than two months. They'd run out of ammo and weapons. It also seems Russia has a huge cost advantage.

With all the bluster from the West, Putin has to also prepare for WWIII. Let's hope it never goes there.

Cal88, question on the unthinkable nuclear war. Let's say Biden's regime decides to launch a 'limited' nuclear strike. They still launch 5 or 10 'limited' bombs, right? And then Russia unloads 10 or 20 intercontinental missiles, maybe hitting Europe and America - I thought I was told they don't send 1 or 2 because many will likely be shot down, so they want 2-4 to get through. So Chicago or Miami is hit, and then mutually assured destruction is launched by both sides from submarines.

Is this roughly correct?

---

"Let's say Biden's regime decides to launch a "limited" nuclear strike."

Do you really think there is even a remote possibility of this happening? Half of the appeal of Biden is that at least he's a sane, seasoned professional, who's not going to go off the rails and do something bat s*** crazy.

---

Biden people gave spoken of using tactical, limited nukes.

Biden is a "a sane, seasoned professional" - who is suffering from some sort of mental decline, has allowed or even pushed the Russia-Ukraine war, and is supplying Israel with weapons to crush defenseless Gaza.

Further, we don't even have an active peace negotiator with Russia. We have no peace talks with either conflict. To be honest, we don't even know who's running the show - odds are its Obama. Today I saw a new Biden fundraising pitch by BHO. Is it POTUS by committee, are areas divided up, Blackrock obviously holds huge sway. It's a disaster.

When Biden became president, nearly three dozen House Democrats urged him to relinquish sole authority to order the launch of nuclear weapons.

Dozens of House Democrats Call on Biden to Give Up Sole Nuclear Launch Authority | Military.com

⚠️ALERT⚠️

Russian Security Services (FSB) have reported that they foiled an upcoming terror attack in the south of the country.

FSB arrested three men from a “Central Asian Country”.

FSB allege the men planned to set off an explosion in a public place near Stavropol. FSB claim… pic.twitter.com/kmKx0eocyU

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) March 29, 2024

Victoria Nuland is making good on her word?

Look folks, Biden ain't gonna toss the first nuke here. NATO sure as heck isn't gonna either. I doubt even Putin would. Even Trump has never done-or-said anything to indicate that he would (in fact, from a "Trump Doctrine" standpoint, it's the last thing he would do... only thing is he's crazy, so ya never know... if the courts seize Mar-a-Lago, all bets are off).

Nukes: not gonna happen here. Remember M.A.D.? (mutually assured destruction... as Cal88 alluded to)

Even the most "war hawk", neo-cons in the US government don't want this to escalate beyond Russia-Ukraine. In their mind, we have a great thing going here as it is: no US boots on ground... ramp-up of the defense industry... get to see what Russia can and cannot do... modernize plans for the next war. It's "perfect" just like it is!

Putin wouldn't have subjected Mother Russia to the meat grinder that is the Ukraine if he was inclined to use tactical nukes, or more. If he was so inclined he would have defeated Ukraine in 10 days or less, but no, he acted like the typical Superpower that avoids Armageddon by conducting warfare with both hands tied behind his back and ekes out a slow bleed out war of attrition victory.

Are we actually wasting time discussing movielover's paranoid nuclear monsters in the closet?

Big C said:

---

Look folks, Biden ain't gonna toss the first nuke here. NATO sure as heck isn't gonna either. I doubt even Putin would. Even Trump has never done-or-said anything to indicate that he would (in fact, from a "Trump Doctrine" standpoint, it's the last thing he would do... only thing is he's crazy, so ya never know... if the courts seize Mar-a-Lago, all bets are off).

Nukes: not gonna happen here. Remember M.A.D.? (mutually assured destruction... as Cal88 alluded to)

Even the most "war hawk", neo-cons in the US government don't want this to escalate beyond Russia-Ukraine. In their mind, we have a great thing going here as it is: no US boots on ground... ramp-up of the defense industry... get to see what Russia can and cannot do... modernize plans for the next war. It's "perfect" just like it is!

---

Putin is the only person who has threatened nuclear escalation and he's done it numerous times. The US has zero reason to use nukes on Russia given that it presents no military threat to the US whatsoever. Of course, Russia presents a threat to our strategic interests, but that's a very different type of threat and not the type that we are inclined to fight with boots on the ground (or in the air).

The extent of our involvement in defense of Ukraine has primarily been sending over excess military equipment (most of it obsolete for decades) as well as financial and intelligence assistance, and of course sanctions.

Anyone who is pretending like Putin is a threat to win any war in which NATO is an actual party is either a useful idiot or just an idiot. Putin has his hands full against an poorly equipped Ukraine. What would he do if the US and other western powers decided to actually show up?

We have a comical amount of excess military equipment because that's how our military operates. There are so many operations/logistics/etc. people whose jobs rely on keeping this stuff available and they are creating a very large margin of safety before recommending/allowing us to send things to Ukraine. As you can imagine, the bureaucratic hurdles are immense. The cozy relationship between congress/military brass/military contractors (eg the MIC) has of course contributed to this ridiculous oversupply. Biden should be using the EDAA much more liberally than he has been.

We could easily send a few thousand Abrams over to Ukraine if we made it a priority but instead sent only 31. We need to stop with symbolic gestures and get them what they need to actually defend themselves.


Unfortunately, Putin has long known how cheap and easy it is to buy off American politicians, so he has had a tremendous ROI on that investment and as a result we haven't sent nearly enough aid.

Regardless of what happens in Ukraine, the US and the American people will remain safe. And despite all of the rhetoric about Russia taking the fight to NATO, no one should be concerned about any sort of Russian threat to the continental US which is ~5,000 miles from Moscow when Russia can barely handle it's much smaller much more poorly equipped neighbor with whom it shares a 1,000 mile plus long border.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Are we actually wasting time discussing movielover's paranoid nuclear monsters in the closet?

---

It's not paranoid. While it's not exactly on the table now, it's only a couple of escalation ladder rungs away. In other words, we are in the most dangerous stage since the Cuba crisis, and back then, you had clear lines of communication with the counterpart Soviets, and cooler heads running the show.

The danger now comes from the fact that the communication lines have been broken, and also because there are a lot of people in the NATO camp who actually believe that Russia's nuclear arsenal is a dud, the kind of people terminally stuck inside U2S' information bubble, which unfortunately is fairly large.

For the folks in the 510, elimination from AI would be more benign than the yoke of Pamela Price.

She gone….last person in the room to know it, however.
Judge denies DA motion to reduce charges in murder case


https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/2024/03/27/courts/family-protests-reduced-charges-double-homicide-devin-williams/

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Big C said:

---

Look folks, Biden ain't gonna toss the first nuke here. NATO sure as heck isn't gonna either. ...

---

Movielover said: More firehose of falsehoods

... The US has zero reason to use nukes on Russia given that it presents no military threat to the US whatsoever.

Reply: Russia has eventually obliterated the Ukrainian military with an unheard of, completely lopsided kill ratio, and depleted NATO and the whole EU of ammunitions and military gear. A top UK military commander just said the UK could only hold off Russia's military for 2 months. Egos, and no statesmen present. No "offramp".

The extent of our involvement in defense of Ukraine has primarily been sending over excess military equipment (most of it obsolete for decades) as well as financial and intelligence assistance, and of course sanctions.

Reply: you skipped 12 secret CIA bases, a political coup, Darth Nuland, NATO and our Special Forces on the ground. Strategizing, funding, intell, sanctions, training.

You'd at least think we'd send over military medical personnel for assistance and training. Ukraine's lack of battlefield medical response is allegedly appalling and catastrophic.

Anyone who is pretending like Putin is a threat to win any war in which NATO is an actual party is either a useful idiot or just an idiot.

NATO / USA was preparing Ukraine for this for a decade, the goal was to "weaken Russia" (Lloyd Austin and others). They failed. NATO is in this knee deep training, supplying, funding, strategizing, undermining (Russia), sanctioning, & provoking. NATO and the EU are now largely impotent with young men wiped out, out of 155 shells and Patriot missiles, while Russia has expanded its already best-in-class manufacturing. The US / NATO prepared for a hi-tech war, and Putin's generals gave them a WWI meat grinder. US / NATO still can't produce a fraction of Russias capacity, and why we desperately sent them cluster munitions.

Putin has his hands full against an poorly equipped Ukraine. What would he do if the US and other western powers decided to actually show up?

Reply: Show up with what? Pea shooters? Ukraine fought valiantly, but once the Bear geared up, added low-cost drones and glide bombs, and 800,000 new troops, forget it. France, Germany, and the UK don't have much. Europe has under spent and not prepared for decades. Colonel Douglass McGregor: "You don't create a military on the fly."

We have a comical amount of excess military equipment because that's how our military operates....

Where exactly are these excess 155 shells and badly needed Patriot batterys?

We could easily send a few thousand Abrams over to Ukraine if we made it a priority but instead sent only 31.

False. We don't want them - and China & Iran - to reverse engineer our depleted uranium tank armor, hence the new production of Abrams tanks w/o that armor.

We need to stop with symbolic gestures and get them what they need to actually defend themselves.

It's over, accept it.

... when Russia can barely handle it's much smaller much more poorly equipped neighbor with whom it shares a 1,000 mile plus long border.

The one we've prepared for 10 years.

---

movielover said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Big C said:

---

Look folks, Biden ain't gonna toss the first nuke here. NATO sure as heck isn't gonna either. ...

---

Movielover said: More firehose of falsehoods

... The US has zero reason to use nukes on Russia given that it presents no military threat to the US whatsoever.

Reply: Russia has eventually obliterated the Ukrainian military with an unheard of, completely lopsided kill ratio, and depleted NATO and the whole EU of ammunitions and military gear. A top UK military commander just said the UK could only hold off Russia's military for 2 months. Egos, and no statesmen present. No "offramp".

The extent of our involvement in defense of Ukraine has primarily been sending over excess military equipment (most of it obsolete for decades) as well as financial and intelligence assistance, and of course sanctions.

Reply: you skipped 12 secret CIA bases, a political coup, Darth Nuland, NATO and our Special Forces on the ground. Strategizing, funding, intell, sanctions, training.

You'd at least think we'd send over military medical personnel for assistance and training. Ukraine's lack of battlefield medical response is allegedly appalling and catastrophic.

Anyone who is pretending like Putin is a threat to win any war in which NATO is an actual party is either a useful idiot or just an idiot.

NATO / USA was preparing Ukraine for this for a decade, the goal was to "weaken Russia" (Lloyd Austin and others). They failed. NATO is in this knee deep training, supplying, funding, strategizing, undermining (Russia), sanctioning, & provoking. NATO and the EU are now largely impotent with young men wiped out, out of 155 shells and Patriot missiles, while Russia has expanded its already best-in-class manufacturing. The US / NATO prepared for a hi-tech war, and Putin's generals gave them a WWI meat grinder. US / NATO still can't produce a fraction of Russias capacity, and why we desperately sent them cluster munitions.

Putin has his hands full against an poorly equipped Ukraine. What would he do if the US and other western powers decided to actually show up?

Reply: Show up with what? Pea shooters? Ukraine fought valiantly, but once the Bear geared up, added low-cost drones and glide bombs, and 800,000 new troops, forget it. France, Germany, and the UK don't have much. Europe has under spent and not prepared for decades. Colonel Douglass McGregor: "You don't create a military on the fly."

We have a comical amount of excess military equipment because that's how our military operates....

Where exactly are these excess 155 shells and badly needed Patriot batterys?

We could easily send a few thousand Abrams over to Ukraine if we made it a priority but instead sent only 31.

False. We don't want them - and China & Iran - to reverse engineer our depleted uranium tank armor, hence the new production of Abrams tanks w/o that armor.

We need to stop with symbolic gestures and get them what they need to actually defend themselves.

It's over, accept it.

... when Russia can barely handle it's much smaller much more poorly equipped neighbor with whom it shares a 1,000 mile plus long border.

The one we've prepared for 10 years.

---

---

Not much more to add to ML's realistic commentaries, U2S's arguments are not rooted in reality and are easy to dismantle.



Posting an image of Arizona weapons storage facilities with Korea/Vietnam War-era tanks to sell the idea that Ukraine is not getting billion dollar Patriot batteries, HIMARS systems or Javelin missiles that will take a decade to replenish - classic U2S.

Modern missile technology against Atari Age air defence. pic.twitter.com/eJzF0b3Aoq

— #SutilCuliao (@KinoVanZaui) March 25, 2024

It takes 5 to 7 minutes to activate a Patriot system, and 2 minutes for a Zircon hypersonic missile traveling at Mach 9 (2 miles per second) to reach any point in Ukraine from Russia.

Russia changed the game again with mass production of the Zircon missile

Spotting plane takeoffs is useless, it can hit anywhere in Ukraine before Zelensky even blinks pic.twitter.com/QMtN88tsoc

— What the media hides. (@narrative_hole) March 26, 2024