By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Russia and Ukraine flashpoint



Around the Network



Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 07 June 2023

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 07 June 2023



Around the Network



Escalate the conflict further? Russians are doing that all the time anyway. Send the F-16s and shoot down those pigs in Migs.



Peskov said the destruction of the dam was intended to deprive Russian-controlled Crimea of the fresh water it receives from the reservoir via the North Crimean Canal, and to distract attention from the counter-offensive.

"Apparently, this sabotage is also connected with the fact that, having started large-scale offensive actions two days ago, now the Ukrainian armed forces are not achieving their goals - these offensive actions are faltering."

Quoted from Reuters. Pretty much translates to "We blew up the dam to distract attention from the fact our forces haven't been achieving any of our goals and our defense is already in deep trouble despite Ukraine's counter-offensive hasn't even begun yet. We'll soon lose Crimea so we wanted to deprive it from fresh water and make sure it'll take years from Ukraine to recover."

Who believes anything these fuckers say? I don't think it would even be possible for Ukraine to plant tons of explosives there, dam was controlled by Russia. 

This calls for strong response from the West, enough of this 'let's not escalate' shit. Russia has done nothing but escalate and they won't stop. Mariupol, Bucha, kidnapping children, torture and now this genoicidal disaster. This is worse than tactical nuke ffs.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/07/nato-members-may-send-troops-to-ukraine-warns-former-alliance-chief

To be clear, it isn't suggested Nato would send troops but some members countries may individually send troops.

There could very other concerns though that if their forces are deployed in Ukraine how would they defend against an inevitable Russian response against themselves? 



SecondWar said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/07/nato-members-may-send-troops-to-ukraine-warns-former-alliance-chief

To be clear, it isn't suggested Nato would send troops but some members countries may individually send troops.

There could very other concerns though that if their forces are deployed in Ukraine how would they defend against an inevitable Russian response against themselves? 

This would be post-war and assuming a Ukraine victory, in the interval between Ukraine applying to join NATO. Basically it would be a non-NATO security guarantee pact between Ukraine and another country or countries, that we are their allies and if you attack them then we will defend them. I think in that case then the country involved would be on their own.

Like with Taiwan, if China attacked Taiwan then I think America would get involved militarily but I'm not convinced many others in NATO would.

But as we've seen in the past, words are useless, however, assuming Ukraine does win, then Russia wouldn't be in any state to invade Ukraine again for a long time, all they'll be capable of doing is lobbing missiles over the border, in which case it would make it safer to have military stationed in Ukraine and give the illusion that they're protecting Ukraine.

If they would stay and fight after an actual invasion is another question and I'm not convinced they would but I'm also not convinced that Russia would call that bluff either, not if it was multiple countries in the security pact, it would be in effect a smaller scale NATO and we know Russia wouldn't dare attack a NATO country so if this security pact had say; UK, Poland, a few other powerful European countries then it may be enough.

Think it may need America though to really deter Russia.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 07 June 2023