Russia launches new IRBM at Ukraine, Zelenskyy says Putin is 'terrified'
Ukraine this week launched U.S.-made missiles at targets inside Russia.
Ukraine and the point of view that Russia aggression is ito protect against nato eastern expansion
- Thread starter Dadar
- Start date
Stating the obvious, but this escalation should concern us all.Russia launches new IRBM at Ukraine, Zelenskyy says Putin is 'terrified'
Ukraine this week launched U.S.-made missiles at targets inside Russia.abcnews.go.com
Russia accidentally bombed itself 150 times in 2024: report
Moscow has accidentally bombed a Russian school, marking the 150th time it has bombed itself this year.
www.newsweek.com
The Chinese ship was in Russia several days ago and was over the cables when they were cut.
www.cbsnews.com
Undersea cables cut or damaged, leading European nations to investigate possible sabotage
A Chinese-flagged cargo ship draws attention after undersea internet cables were severed, leading European countries to investigate possible sabotage.
www.cbsnews.com
Last edited:
I’m not sure it means much. Honestly, it was fairly stupid. They weren’t carrying explosives. They were strictly kinetic. Expensive exercise to make a point with unnecessarily sophisticated and hard (for Russia) to replace when cheaper, conventional weapons are more than capable of achieving that result at that range.
This is a recurring issue with China/Russia. Posted October 24, 2023…The Chinese ship was in Russia several days ago and was over the cables when they were cut.
Undersea cables cut or damaged, leading European nations to investigate possible sabotage
A Chinese-flagged cargo ship draws attention after undersea internet cables were severed, leading European countries to investigate possible sabotage.
You’re right, the Iraq war was considerably worse.
I don’t like the Russians. I think they’re an adversary. The difference between you and me is that I don’t live in a fantasy world where you get to ignore the complaints of the other side and then wonder why there’s conflict. The West told them to get over NATO expanding, and they decided to force the issue in Ukraine. Not irrational
Last edited:
I’ll keep asking it until I get an answer. You believe that the people of Crimea and Russian-occupied Ukraine are going to welcome Kyiv again?
Last edited:
Interesting if China is working with Russia on this as things have appeared on the surface
What do you think? Do you want to live under Putin's Russia?
Why many in Ukraine oppose a ‘land for peace’ formula to end the war
Should Ukraine surrender land to Russia to end the war? Opposition had been strong throughout the conflict, but Ukrainians are shifting on whether their territory is inviolate.
Last edited:
It's kind of irrational to start a fight you can't win. If you are going to play devil's advocate, you can't forget to critique to devil. I totally get what you are doing here, and encourage you to continue making points, because they are valid considerations. We do need to state the obvious thing though. Russia aint shit but nukes. Their population, infrastructure, education are ALL on the decline badly and part of their reasoning here is : If we don't do it now, we will never be able to do it. NATO has been in effect for what? 50 years or more, Russia propaganda and intelligence has rallied now behind a single dictator for well over 2 decades now. This is all Putin, he has established a network of intelligence and military that answer to one strong man.
It's always valid to consider the agression of NATO but the chess board was laid out a long long time ago. Russia is making moves on that board, and to act like this is the same as America invading Iraq is not a great comparison. This is coming from someone who protested the war in Iraq day 1, it was always bullshit.
And your first paragraph is why this has been a terrible move for Putin and huge of us to have allowed to be shown for all the world. Russia is not a superpower. Take away nukes and they are not a country to fear.
Hypersonics typically don't carry explosives. Their kinetic energy alone provides sufficient yield....at least as I understand it.
Still, maybe you're right. My first thought was this is a rather expensive point to make and also one that reveals considerable operational details about your employment of such weapons, especially if we were able to track the weapon and obtain kinematic data along its flight path.
Last edited:
It's beside the point, and I really don't care. It was sovereign territory. If a case was to be made for succession, that would have to be made outside any sort of military occupation.
Fair, point on the surface, but not fair to view those moves in isolation....as if Russia has not been acting aggressively towards its neighbors and elsewhere on the world stage. Putin has long spoke of uniting the former USSR and has been doing more than just saber rattling over it since he came to power.
NATO and the rest of Europe is not out there trying to annex Russian territory. Russia is.
Last edited:
Hypersonics can be kinetic only. Most carry explosives. Outside of some of the really advanced, new HGWs, Most of what exists today is basically a ballistic missile with a scramjet engine integrated somehow.
Not trying to annex Russian territory is a low bar. The US didn't push for NATO to expand because we have a soft spot for protecting Romania or because the strength of the North Macedonian military is critical to our national security. We gained a large degree of political pull out of it, and it's a source of pressure against Russia strategically. Hardly some innocent maneuvering.
When Russia wants to continue to maintain influence over the former Soviet Union, it's a continuation of Russian tyranny. When we want to gain influence over the same countries, it has nothing to do with American's own designs? If we're honest and admit that we went into all of this trying to help ourselves and to screw them over, we can't blame them for wanting to do the same.
And we're not aggressive? Align explicitly against the US as a half-rate power or political organization and see where it gets you. Assad, Qaddafi, and Saddam come to mind immediately. There wasn't a left-wing Latin American government we didn't organize a coup against in the 60s and 70s. The Indonesian government exterminated several hundred thousand "communists" in the 60s with our support. Mosaddegh got a coup in exchange for oil.
I'm not foaming out the mouth because Russia decided a hostile regime sitting right next to them that has openly backed neo-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists wasn't something they could accept.
The American people can't be expected to foot the bill for Zelenskyy to oveprromise.
Last edited:
I am all in favor of revisiting the US's foreign policy over the last 100 years. There is a lot that at least looks hard to justify on the surface. Inso doing, you also have to consider that we have not gone kinetic against a near-peer rival since WWII....and there is at least something to be said for that.
And I am also not in favor of footing the bill to help Europe pull her chestnuts out of the fire yet again....which is why I like Trump's power play WRT Ukraine paying for our help.
Last edited:
Agree others need to increase help, but Ukraine is currently a front line against an enemy of the US and not just Europe
We sure are in some good company. I've always subscribed to the belief that you are the company that you keep. Pretty telling who we seem to be aligning ourselves with.
Before we critique the vote, care to expound upon merits of the resolution itself?
A resolution condemning Russia for its invasion of Ukraine? Seems like a no brainer unless you mainline Kremlin talking points.
I’m curious to see the US resolution being released later today, but seeing us vote alongside NK, Russia, Sudan, Belarus, and Hungary is pretty damn sad.
Would say it all depends on whats being voted for. Just because you dont like somebody doesnt mean you CANT EVER AGREE on somethings...
Yeah. I would say "not liking" is a little less than how we should feel about North Korea and Russia.
Last edited:
Agree, a resolution simply condemning Russia for invading Ukraine is a no-brainer. Is that all this resolution states though?
A good breakdown on it. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/24/g-s1-50473/un-ukraine-resolution-russia
I'm assuming the issue is the resolution calls for none of the territory Russia has taken will remain with them after resolution of the war.
Well, I certainly condem Russia; and not only should they immediately give all territory back, including the Crimea that was seized under Obama's watch, but make full restitution to Ukraine for the impact of the war.
But I am also not trying to negotiate an end to the war without further escalation and involvement of the US.
