What's new

POLL: Will Ukraine recapture another city?

yes or no


  • Total voters
    28
Also, NATO has already said a nuclear strike would immediately result in a NATO intervention and NATO/US strikes against Russian forces on Ukrainian territory.
Saying that NATO will intervene in the event of Russian nuclear strike and actually intervening are two different things.

Do you really believe that the West will risk a nuclear war with Russia with its 5000 nuclear warheads because of territorial integrity of shitty Ukraine - a country that was a third world Brothel of Europe prior to it being invaded by Russia?

How can you imagine NATO intervening and militarily attacking a nuclear power like Russia without conflict escalating into thermonuclear strikes on New York, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Berlin, Paris, London, Warsaw and other cities?

This Zelensky and Ukraine are the same for the West as Mujaheedins were in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion of 1980s. Just useful for weakening their adversary.

The West is happy that they can weaken Russia by fighting it till the last Ukrainian, but they will never risk the lives of 340mln Americans and 500mln Europeans because of territorial integrity of shitty and wasted Ukraine.

USA itself was never shy of using nuclear weapons against an already defeated country like Japan, which never posed a direct threat to survival of the American state. In contrast NATO forces 400kms away from Moscow are a direct threat to long term survival of Russian state, so why Russia should by shy of using nuclear weapons when the very survival of the state in the long-run is at risk?

1) Winston Churchill- the Great Hero of the West- wanted to nuke Soviet Union in 1940s for the purpose of preserving Western hegemony.
2) General Doughlas MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against China during the Korean War.
3) Americans were ready to start WWIII when Soviets deployed military bases in Cuba and Curtis Lemay wanted to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.
4) Americans considered using nuclear weapons in Vietnam
5) Israel considered using nuclear weapons in 1973 Yom Kippur War even despite the fact that their nuclear weapons capability were not fully developed.

So why Russia should tolerate 700.000 NATO troops near its cities of Belgorod and Bryansk and only 400kms away from Moscow? Last time Russia shared a border with an adversary in 1941- 27mln people died and the state itself was nearly destroyed...Why Russia should compromise the long-term security of its people?

If Americans were in Russian place, after suffering defeats in 2022, they would have already nuked Ukraine multiple times and by today, instead of Oppenheimer, they would have already filmed a movie about heroic American pilots saving Democracy and Freedom by nuking hostile cities.

Russia should make an Ultimatum to Zelensky- accept a reasonable demand of a Demilitarized Zone or Russia will use nuclear weapons.

City of Lvov, whose population hates Russians the most can be the target. People of Lvov will have time to leave the city. A 5Kt nuclear blast, slightly more powerful than the Mossad made Beirut explosion of 2020, will destroy the city if Zelensky will not accept the Ultimatum and all blood will be on his hands.

West will be shocked, and not willing further escalation to WWIII with nuclear exchange, will decrease the level of support to Ukraine and put pressure on Zelensky to accept Russian demands.

Next cities will be on the list if Ukraine does not capitulate. Americans did like that with Japan during WWII

This will end the war quickly and with minimum costs and casualties on BOTH sides and with Russian victory.

All is fair in love and war.....

But Russian President, whose state's long term survival prospects are at risk, is worried what the West will think and say and instead of using nuclear weapons, prefers to fight a 5 year war with 500.000 casualties at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and without any victory.
 
Last edited:
.
Saying that NATO will intervene in the event of Russian nuclear strike and actually intervening are two different things.

Do you really believe that the West will risk a nuclear war with Russia with its 5000 nuclear warheads because of territorial integrity of shitty Ukraine - a country that was a third world Brothel of Europe prior to it being invaded by Russia?

How can you imagine NATO intervening and militarily attacking a nuclear power like Russia without conflict escalating into thermonuclear strikes on New York, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Berlin, Paris, London, Warsaw and other cities?

This Zelensky and Ukraine are the same for the West as Mujaheedins were in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion of 1980s. Just useful for weakening their adversary.

The West is happy that they can weaken Russia by fighting it till the last Ukrainian, but they will never risk the lives of 340mln Americans and 500mln Europeans because of territorial integrity of shitty and wasted Ukraine.

USA itself was never shy of using nuclear weapons against an already defeated country like Japan, which never posed a direct threat to survival of the American state. In contrast NATO forces 400kms away from Moscow are a direct threat to long term survival of Russian state, so why Russia should by shy of using nuclear weapons when the very survival of the state in the long-run is at risk?

1) Winston Churchill- the Great Hero of the West- wanted to nuke Soviet Union in 1940s for the purpose of preserving Western hegemony.
2) General Doughlas MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against China during the Korean War.
3) Americans were ready to start WWIII when Soviets deployed military bases in Cuba and Curtis Lemay wanted to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.
4) Americans considered using nuclear weapons in Vietnam
5) Israel considered using nuclear weapons in 1973 Yom Kippur War even despite the fact that their nuclear weapons capability were not fully developed.

So why Russia should tolerate 700.000 NATO troops near its cities of Belgorod and Bryansk and only 400kms away from Moscow? Last time Russia shared a border with an adversary in 1941- 27mln people died and the state itself was nearly destroyed...Why Russia should compromise the long-term security of its people?

If Americans were in Russian place, after suffering defeats in 2022, they would have already nuked Ukraine multiple times and by today, instead of Oppenheimer, they would have already filmed a movie about heroic American pilots saving Democracy and Freedom by nuking hostile cities.

Russia should make an Ultimatum to Zelensky- accept a reasonable demand of a Demilitarized Zone or Russia will use nuclear weapons.

City of Lvov, whose population hates Russians the most can be the target. People of Lvov will have time to leave the city. A 5Kt nuclear blast, slightly more powerful than the Mossad made Beirut explosion of 2020, will destroy the city if Zelensky will not accept the Ultimatum and all blood will be on his hands.

West will be shocked, and not willing further escalation to WWIII with nuclear exchange, will decrease the level of support to Ukraine and put pressure on Zelensky to accept Russian demands.

Next cities will be on the list if Ukraine does not capitulate. Americans did like that with Japan during WWII

This will end the war quickly and with minimum costs and casualties on BOTH sides and with Russian victory.

All is fair in love and war.....

But Russian President, whose state's long term survival prospects are at risk, is worried what the West will think and say and instead of using nuclear weapons, prefers to fight a 5 year war with 500.000 casualties at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and without any victory.
For all your entire useless comment, you fail to realize one thing, your logic can be used against you, thus negating your entire premise.

NATO's intervention is entirely based upon a Russian nuclear weapons use. Do you think Putin is stupid enough to use nukes? I doubt it.

Also, a NATO intervention would be entirely localized within Ukraine, so a Russian nuclear retaliation directly aimed at foreign nations would be entire unjustifiable, and would result in a counter nuclear strike.

Mentioning what happened to Japan is retarded, and shows you have zero context of proper knowledge about history. The US lost in both Iraq and Afghanistan, they didn't nuke them now did they? Your comments are retarded.

Finally, Russia has had NATO forces on its borders for decades without a single incident occurring. Ukraine joining NATO or the EU would have done nothing to their security strategy.

Your comment reads like fanfiction written by a teenager that just got into military enthusiasm.
 
.
LOL NATO is shit. Go! Throw the bomb! Then we all will know...for a short time in what we will be to blinded to see.
 
.
For all your entire useless comment, you fail to realize one thing, your logic can be used against you, thus negating your entire premise.

NATO's intervention is entirely based upon a Russian nuclear weapons use. Do you think Putin is stupid enough to use nukes? I doubt it.

Also, a NATO intervention would be entirely localized within Ukraine, so a Russian nuclear retaliation directly aimed at foreign nations would be entire unjustifiable, and would result in a counter nuclear strike.

Mentioning what happened to Japan is retarded, and shows you have zero context of proper knowledge about history. The US lost in both Iraq and Afghanistan, they didn't nuke them now did they? Your comments are retarded.

Finally, Russia has had NATO forces on its borders for decades without a single incident occurring. Ukraine joining NATO or the EU would have done nothing to their security strategy.

Your comment reads like fanfiction written by a teenager that just got into military enthusiasm.
It was a fanfiction when US dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and it was even fanfiction when Russia invaded Ukraine, starting the biggest conflict in Europe since 1945 until it happened. And it is an absolute fanfiction when prospects of Russia using nuclear weapons in Ukraine are seriously debated in military circles of the West.

Kid, Russia will not use nuclear weapons against a NATO country but against Ukraine, so why NATO should intervene. They have no any obligation to protect Ukraine. Whatever you say, you dont intervene conventionally in response to non conventional nuclear strike in a third country, that you have zero obligations to protect. Do you think NATO is stupid enough to start a war with nuclear armed Russia because of Ukraine? You think it is a computer game with NATO attacking forces of a thermonuclear power that has 5000 nukes at its disposal? Why dont you listen to what President Biden said regarding why US didn't intervene to protect Ukraine on 24 February 2022? If NATO had the balls for starting a war with Russia in Ukraine they would have done so on 24 February 2022, but they didn't

Your retarded comment about military intervention "localized only to Ukraine" shows that you have zero understanding of how conflicts can escalate from ordinary skirmish into a full out nuclear exchange. Go learn how small incident of killing of Franz Ferdinand quickly escalated into WWI with millions of casualties and then talk amateurish nonsense about NATO making a "just localized" military intervention against a 147mln populated thermonuclear power with 5000 nuclear warheads....

You must be retarded if you think that NATO can defeat Russia in Ukraine in a "localized only to Ukraine" military strike and Russia will sit and watch and accept its defeat like it is some sort of Lybia.

If you like it that way, in response to unprovoked NATO aggression, when they will start shooting at Russian soldiers because of Ukraine, (which is a country they are not even obliged to protect,) Russia will declare full mobilization and declare war and due to superiority of NATO in conventional forces, Russia will use tactical nukes against NATO airfields, which is perfectly within Russia's military doctrine. That's how conflicts escalate and NATO knows it very well and that is why NATO will do NOTHING if Russia decides to use nukes in Ukraine.

Russia is not obliged to follow your laws or rules. So turn on your brain and think twice before talking amateurish nonsense of NATO shooting at soldiers of a thermonuclear superpower.

US lost wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but those were wars of local significance and no significance at all. So why US should use nukes there? Your retarded comparison of Empire of Japan with Afghanistan shows that you have less than zero context of proper understanding of history.

Kid, before talking nonsense about fanfiction written by teenager that just got into military enthusiasm, go learn history before talking nonsense. Learn how US seriously considered using nukes in third world countries like Vietnam and Korea even when those wars didnt directly threaten US, Israel considered using nukes in 1973.

All those conflicts in third world didn't threaten US survival, but War in Ukraine threatens long-term prospects of survival of Russian state and security of Russian people and this was clearly said by President Putin. Russia cant live with NATO forces 400kms away from Moscow. Period.

For your idiotic claim that Russia can live with NATO at its borders, you should first answer the question whether US can live with Chinese bases in Mexico or with Soviet bases in Cuba.

When Soviets deployed military bases in Cuba, US considered starting WWIII using nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike. So Americans can't live with Soviet bases in Cuba, but according to your idiotic logic Russia should live with NATO bases 400kms away from Moscow? NATO expanded into Baltic states when Russia collapsed and was very weak, but this is much less relevant than NATO expanding into Ukraine and deploying along the 800km long border with Russia.

You have Gordon Freeman on your Avatar and seriously think that NATO will risk lives of its 900mln people by shooting at soldiers of a thermonuclear superpower because of Ukraine and without facing any serious consequences, and yet you claim that my comment is like a fanfiction written by a militarily enthusiastic teenager? LOL. Why dont you learn history and learn to understand history (particularly the real experience of Japan in 1945) before writing useless comments of low quality?
 
Last edited:
.
It was a fanfiction when US dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and it was even fanfiction when Russia invaded Ukraine, starting the biggest conflict in Europe since 1945 until it happened. And it is an absolute fanfiction when prospects of Russia using nuclear weapons in Ukraine are seriously debated in military circles of the West.

Kid, Russia will not use nuclear weapons against a NATO country but against Ukraine, so why NATO should intervene. They have no any obligation to protect Ukraine. Whatever you say, you dont intervene conventionally in response to non conventional nuclear strike in a third country, that you have zero obligations to protect. Do you think NATO is stupid enough to start a war with nuclear armed Russia because of Ukraine? You think it is a computer game with NATO attacking forces of a thermonuclear power that has 5000 nukes at its disposal? Why dont you listen to what President Biden said regarding why US didn't intervene to protect Ukraine on 24 February 2022? If NATO had the balls for starting a war with Russia in Ukraine they would have done so on 24 February 2022, but they didn't

Your retarded comment about military intervention "localized only to Ukraine" shows that you have zero understanding of how conflicts can escalate from ordinary skirmish into a full out nuclear exchange. Go learn how small incident of killing of Franz Ferdinand quickly escalated into WWI with millions of casualties and then talk amateurish nonsense about NATO making a "just localized" military intervention against a 147mln populated thermonuclear power with 5000 nuclear warheads....

You must be retarded if you think that NATO can defeat Russia in Ukraine in a "localized only to Ukraine" military strike and Russia will sit and watch and accept its defeat like it is some sort of Lybia.

If you like it that way, in response to unprovoked NATO aggression, when they will start shooting at Russian soldiers because of Ukraine, (which is a country they are not even obliged to protect,) Russia will declare full mobilization and declare war and due to superiority of NATO in conventional forces, Russia will use tactical nukes against NATO airfields, which is perfectly within Russia's military doctrine. That's how conflicts escalate and NATO knows it very well and that is why NATO will do NOTHING if Russia decides to use nukes in Ukraine.

Russia is not obliged to follow your laws or rules. So turn on your brain and think twice before talking amateurish nonsense of NATO shooting at soldiers of a thermonuclear superpower.

US lost wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but those were wars of local significance and no significance at all. So why US should use nukes there? Your retarded comparison of Empire of Japan with Afghanistan shows that you have less than zero context of proper understanding of history.

Kid, before talking nonsense about fanfiction written by teenager that just got into military enthusiasm, go learn history before talking nonsense. Learn how US seriously considered using nukes in third world countries like Vietnam and Korea even when those wars didnt directly threaten US, Israel considered using nukes in 1973.

All those conflicts in third world didn't threaten US survival, but War in Ukraine threatens long-term prospects of survival of Russian state and security of Russian people and this was clearly said by President Putin. Russia cant live with NATO forces 400kms away from Moscow. Period.

For your idiotic claim that Russia can live with NATO at its borders, you should first answer the question whether US can live with Chinese bases in Mexico or with Soviet bases in Cuba.

When Soviets deployed military bases in Cuba, US considered starting WWIII using nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike. So Americans can't live with Soviet bases in Cuba, but according to your idiotic logic Russia should live with NATO bases 400kms away from Moscow? NATO expanded into Baltic states when Russia collapsed and was very weak, but this is much less relevant than NATO expanding into Ukraine and deploying along the 800km long border with Russia.

You have Gordon Freeman on your Avatar and seriously think that NATO will risk lives of its 900mln people by shooting at soldiers of a thermonuclear superpower because of Ukraine and without facing any serious consequences, and yet you claim that my comment is like a fanfiction written by a militarily enthusiastic teenager? LOL. Why dont you learn history and learn to understand history (particularly the real experience of Japan in 1945) before writing useless comments of low quality?
Once again, you have zero idea what you're talking about. If you won't listen to me, perhaps you'll listen to an actual professional...

@jhungary

By the way, your claims have zero evidences, and you are purposefully creating strawman arguments, while twisting my words to suit your narrative.

If Russia was gonna use a nuke, they would have done so by now.

By the way, I love how you claimed that the US would use nukes if they were about to lose a war, but you suddenly moved the goal post once I gave you two wars that have defined the 21st century, while you downplayed them. Also, if not those, what about the Korean War? Or Vietnam? The US ended up stalemate in Korea, and lost in Vietnam (once again, those two war have defined the region and the world).

Your entire rant is worthless because it doesn't actually address anything I said in any meaningful way, and just reiterates your worthless unproven claims.
 
.
Once again, you have zero idea what you're talking about. If you won't listen to me, perhaps you'll listen to an actual professional...

@jhungary

By the way, your claims have zero evidences, and you are purposefully creating strawman arguments, while twisting my words to suit your narrative.

If Russia was gonna use a nuke, they would have done so by now.

By the way, I love how you claimed that the US would use nukes if they were about to lose a war, but you suddenly moved the goal post once I gave you two wars that have defined the 21st century, while you downplayed them. Also, if not those, what about the Korean War? Or Vietnam? The US ended up stalemate in Korea, and lost in Vietnam (once again, those two war have defined the region and the world).

Your entire rant is worthless because it doesn't actually address anything I said in any meaningful way, and just reiterates your worthless unproven claims.
I usually don't do this, because if someone have crazy belief, I will tend to just let him, I mean there are no cure for crazy,Anyway, I will keep it short here.

The most effective way to use nuclear weapon is actually not to use it, but threaten to use it. Because, well, setting aside every other aspect (such as radioactive fallout will blow to Poland or blown back to Russia, and tactical nuke is too small to take any effect, that kind of reasoning) Using nuke on a foreign war change the calculus of how the other side operate, because logic dictate you treat the scenario differently if Russia or China use nuke, no matter how much yield the nuke was

That's in turn because before nuke was used, you still need to factor in the fact that the other side "May Not" use them, and that give the other side negotiating power, however, once nuke was used, no matter how big or small that is, then all bets are off, then the otherside would need to calculate their response based on the assumption that nuke "would be" used. In the iold days, when I was working with NATO back in late 90s and early 00s, once nuke was used, the SOP is for NATO to conduct a "full count" which NATO will seek and destroy the nuke of the other side. That was done based on 2 reason. 1.) Destorying the most amount of nuke they have, most static and some mobile, hopefully the other side will stand down, knowing they still have some nuke, because you still technically didn not lose anything. 2.) Even if the other side escalated. they only process a fraction of nuke now, damage could be limited.

It's naive and borderline stupid to think NATO will not react if and when Russia use nuke. Hell, I think China and India themselves would react if Russia use nuke because Russia is writing check for India and China to cash it. In fact, NATO already did react once for Russian nuclear posture, if you remember correctly, at the height of Russian daily Nuclear Threat in this war with Ukraine, once NATO order all their plane to turn off their transponder, if you served in anti-air unit or as a fighter pilot, you know what that mean, that's why Russia did not give out nuclear warning like they did daily after this NATO fighter jet incident (thinks there's only 2 or 3 times Putin mention nuclear weapon since then) .

 
.
I usually don't do this, because if someone have crazy belief, I will tend to just let him, I mean there are no cure for crazy,Anyway, I will keep it short here.

The most effective way to use nuclear weapon is actually not to use it, but threaten to use it. Because, well, setting aside every other aspect (such as radioactive fallout will blow to Poland or blown back to Russia, and tactical nuke is too small to take any effect, that kind of reasoning) Using nuke on a foreign war change the calculus of how the other side operate, because logic dictate you treat the scenario differently if Russia or China use nuke, no matter how much yield the nuke was

That's in turn because before nuke was used, you still need to factor in the fact that the other side "May Not" use them, and that give the other side negotiating power, however, once nuke was used, no matter how big or small that is, then all bets are off, then the otherside would need to calculate their response based on the assumption that nuke "would be" used. In the iold days, when I was working with NATO back in late 90s and early 00s, once nuke was used, the SOP is for NATO to conduct a "full count" which NATO will seek and destroy the nuke of the other side. That was done based on 2 reason. 1.) Destorying the most amount of nuke they have, most static and some mobile, hopefully the other side will stand down, knowing they still have some nuke, because you still technically didn not lose anything. 2.) Even if the other side escalated. they only process a fraction of nuke now, damage could be limited.

It's naive and borderline stupid to think NATO will not react if and when Russia use nuke. Hell, I think China and India themselves would react if Russia use nuke because Russia is writing check for India and China to cash it. In fact, NATO already did react once for Russian nuclear posture, if you remember correctly, at the height of Russian daily Nuclear Threat in this war with Ukraine, once NATO order all their plane to turn off their transponder, if you served in anti-air unit or as a fighter pilot, you know what that mean, that's why Russia did not give out nuclear warning like they did daily after this NATO fighter jet incident (thinks there's only 2 or 3 times Putin mention nuclear weapon since then) .

Russia is not shooting at NATO or attacking NATO territory and NATO has no any obligations to protect Ukraine, protect Ukrainian territorial integrity or intervene in the event if Russia commits attrocities in Ukraine.

For NATO conflict in Ukraine is a conflict in a third country they are not obliged to protect.

According to the Russian military doctrine: "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons."

Some quotes from Putin:

Putin on 24 February 2022: "A few very important words for those who may be tempted to intervene in the conflict in Ukraine from the outside. Whoever tries to interfere with us, let alone threaten our country, should know that Russia's response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences that you have never faced in your entire history"

Putin on April 27, 2022: "If someone intervenes in the conflict in Ukraine from the outside and create strategic threats for Russia, our response will be lightning fast."

Americans themselves seriously considered use of nuclear weapons in Korea and Vietnam, even when defeat in those wars never created any strategic threat to US- just two third world countries fell to communism, that's it.

On Dec 9, 1950, Gen Douglas MacArthur said that he wanted commander's discretion to use atomic weapons in the Korean theater. On Dec 24, he submitted "a list of retardation targets" for which he required 26 atomic bombs. He also wanted four to drop on the "invasion forces" and four more for "critical concentrations of enemy air power".....MacArthur was certain that the Russians would have done nothing about this extreme strategy, Cumings said.

^^eventually Korean war ended in a stalemate and on terms favorable to US, so there was no any need to use nuclear bombs. But it can be assumed that if China were to go beyond the 38th parallel, the Americans could use nuclear weapons.

Americans even planned to use nuclear weapons against such poor, third world country like North Vietnam, but massive anti-war demonstrations in US prevented this from happening:

The documents reveal a long-secret set of preparations by the commander, Gen. William C. Westmoreland, to have nuclear weapons at hand should American forces find themselves on the brink of defeat at Khe Sanh, one of the fiercest battles of the war.

Israel planned to go nuclear in 1973, but there was no need for that because Arabs were defeated with conventional means.

Israel Nearly Went Nuclear to Win the 1973 Yom Kippur War

And now we are in Ukraine. Unlike Korea or Vietnam, losing the War in Ukraine will create strategic threats for Russia that Russia can't tolerate.

The aim of the war is to impose your will upon the enemy. Russia can't impose its will upon Ukraine using conventional means, since Russian conventional military is decimated.

While you are whining on fanboy online forums about "someone having crazy beliefs" situation is very serious for Russia and Russia has already lost 250.000 troops including 70.000 dead. This is like the size of a big city.

That is more than US loses in Vietnam/Iraq1991/Iraq2003/Afghanistan/Lybia/Yugoslavia COMBINED and the goals of the war are far from being achieved and the war itself can last for many more years with even more casualties and costs.....

Situation is so dire for Russia, that Ukrainians are even making counteroffensives trying to reconquer the lost territories, while Russia is on defensive and Russia CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE this war

So tell me what NATO will do if we assume Russia uses tactical nukes in Ukraine for the purpose of preventing its defeat and humiliation or enforcing capitulation of Ukraine?

Will they....Will they impose some sort of no-fly zone and start shooting at soldiers of a thermonuclear superpower in an unprovoked aggression thinking they are dealing with Lybia?

Do they have any instinct of self-preservation?

According to you, Putin was like a parrot who repeated nuclear threats every single day, like as if the message was not clear after several public statements.... but when NATO aircrafts turned off their transponders Putin was so afraid that he stopped being a parrot.

But tell me whether NATO was afraid when Head Of Russia publicly said that "if they intervene in Ukraine they will face consequences that they have never faced in their entire history" and then Putin put Russia's nuclear force on high alert?

Unlike leaders of the West, you must be naive and borderline stupid if you have a delusion that this will be a one-sided game with NATO aircrafts turning off their transponders and Russia easily accepting its defeat and humiliation without escalating this unprovoked act of aggression to a new level.

Before turning off your transponders and writing nonsense, you better listen to what your own Commander in Chief says:

Biden: "If Russia uses nukes in Ukraine, the consequence is that they will become a pariah" LOL.

Biden Won't Send U.S. Troops to Ukraine: 'That's World War III'
 
Last edited:
.
Russia is not shooting at NATO or attacking NATO territory and NATO has no any obligations to protect Ukraine, protect Ukrainian territorial integrity or intervene in the event if Russia commits attrocities in Ukraine.

For NATO conflict in Ukraine is a conflict in a third country they are not obliged to protect.

According to the Russian military doctrine: "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons."

Some quotes from Putin:

Putin on 24 February 2022: "A few very important words for those who may be tempted to intervene in the conflict in Ukraine from the outside. Whoever tries to interfere with us, let alone threaten our country, should know that Russia's response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences that you have never faced in your entire history"

Putin on April 27, 2022: "If someone intervenes in the conflict in Ukraine from the outside and create strategic threats for Russia, our response will be lightning fast."

Americans themselves seriously considered use of nuclear weapons in Korea and Vietnam, even when defeat in those wars never created any strategic threat to US- just two third world countries fell to communism, that's it.

On Dec 9, 1950, Gen Douglas MacArthur said that he wanted commander's discretion to use atomic weapons in the Korean theater. On Dec 24, he submitted "a list of retardation targets" for which he required 26 atomic bombs. He also wanted four to drop on the "invasion forces" and four more for "critical concentrations of enemy air power".....MacArthur was certain that the Russians would have done nothing about this extreme strategy, Cumings said.

^^eventually Korean war ended in a stalemate and on terms favorable to US, so there was no any need to use nuclear bombs. But it can be assumed that if China were to go beyond the 38th parallel, the Americans could use nuclear weapons.

Americans even planned to use nuclear weapons against such poor, third world country like North Vietnam, but massive anti-war demonstrations in US prevented this from happening:

The documents reveal a long-secret set of preparations by the commander, Gen. William C. Westmoreland, to have nuclear weapons at hand should American forces find themselves on the brink of defeat at Khe Sanh, one of the fiercest battles of the war.

Israel planned to go nuclear in 1973, but there was no need for that because Arabs were defeated with conventional means.

Israel Nearly Went Nuclear to Win the 1973 Yom Kippur War

And now we are in Ukraine. Unlike Korea or Vietnam, losing the War in Ukraine will create strategic threats for Russia that Russia can't tolerate.

The aim of the war is to impose your will upon the enemy. Russia can't impose its will upon Ukraine using conventional means, since Russian conventional military is decimated.

While you are whining on fanboy online forums about "someone having crazy beliefs" situation is very serious for Russia and Russia has already lost 250.000 troops including 70.000 dead. This is like the size of a big city.

That is more than US loses in Vietnam/Iraq1991/Iraq2003/Afghanistan/Lybia/Yugoslavia COMBINED and the goals of the war are far from being achieved and the war itself can last for many more years with even more casualties and costs.....

Situation is so dire for Russia, that Ukrainians are even making counteroffensives trying to reconquer the lost territories, while Russia is on defensive and Russia CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE this war

So tell me what NATO will do if we assume Russia will use tactical nukes in Ukraine for the purpose of preventing its defeat and humiliation or enforcing capitulation of Ukraine?

Will they....Will they impose some sort of no-fly zone and start shooting at soldiers of a thermonuclear superpower in an unprovoked aggression thinking they are dealing with Lybia?

Do they have any instinct of self-preservation?

According to you, Putin was like a parrot who repeated nuclear threats every single day, like as if the message was not clear after several public statements.... but when NATO aircrafts turned off their transponders Putin was so afraid that he stopped being a parrot.

But tell me whether NATO was afraid when Head Of Russia publicly said that "if they intervene in Ukraine they will face consequences that they have never faced in their entire history" and then Putin put Russia's nuclear force on high alert?

Unlike leaders of the West, you must be naive and borderline stupid if you have a delusion that this will be a one-sided game with NATO aircrafts turning off their transponders and Russia easily accepting its defeat and humiliation without escalating this unprovoked act of aggression to a new level.

Before turning off your transponders and writing nonsense, you better listen to what your own Commander in Chief says:

Biden: "If Russia uses nukes in Ukraine, the consequence is that they will become a pariah" LOL.

Biden Won't Send U.S. Troops to Ukraine: 'That's World War III'
You are naive, it's not about Ukraine when Russia uses nuke, it's about USING NUKE. and what it represents, which is how far Russia will go to win a war, a foreign war no less, it does not matter if Russia using it in Ukraine, Afghanistan or China, the usage itself is what it represents.

Or are you stupid enough to believe that Russia will look the other way if US uses nuke on Kazakhstan or Butan? Exactly how old are you?
 
.
You are naive, it's not about Ukraine when Russia uses nuke, it's about USING NUKE. and what it represents, which is how far Russia will go to win a war, a foreign war no less, it does not matter if Russia using it in Ukraine, Afghanistan or China, the usage itself is what it represents.

Or are you stupid enough to believe that Russia will look the other way if US uses nuke on Kazakhstan or Butan? Exactly how old are you?
This is WAR. 250.000 Russians are dead and wounded. Is this joke for you? Russia is losing. You ask me how old am I, but you don't ask how old is Joe Biden and US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or US Defense Secretary when they discuss the same things as me? Don't you?

If there are public discussions of potential usage of nukes by Russia on the highest level of US government and military, including US President himself, than such possibility is real and not some fanfiction.
 
Last edited:
. .
This is WAR. 250.000 Russians are dead and wounded. Russia is losing. If there are public discussions of potential usage of nukes by Russia on the highest level of US government and military, including US President himself, than such possibility is real and not some fanfiction.
You can discuss all you want, as I said, NATO will up the posture in the case of Russian using nuke and that's a logical response, whether Russian want to nuke Ukraine or US. you can try to nuke the US president and end the world, if that is what you want, because don't forget, not only Russia have nuke NATO had them too. And if this is the case, we all died so it really wouldn't matter now, doesn't it??

I mean, you do know not only Russia can threaten to use nuke, right? Or are you really that bnaive to think NATO will not retaliate and just let Russia nuke them?? lol :lol:
 
.
Saying that NATO will intervene in the event of Russian nuclear strike and actually intervening are two different things.

Do you really believe that the West will risk a nuclear war with Russia with its 5000 nuclear warheads because of territorial integrity of shitty Ukraine - a country that was a third world Brothel of Europe prior to it being invaded by Russia?

How can you imagine NATO intervening and militarily attacking a nuclear power like Russia without conflict escalating into thermonuclear strikes on New York, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Berlin, Paris, London, Warsaw and other cities?

This Zelensky and Ukraine are the same for the West as Mujaheedins were in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion of 1980s. Just useful for weakening their adversary.

The West is happy that they can weaken Russia by fighting it till the last Ukrainian, but they will never risk the lives of 340mln Americans and 500mln Europeans because of territorial integrity of shitty and wasted Ukraine.

USA itself was never shy of using nuclear weapons against an already defeated country like Japan, which never posed a direct threat to survival of the American state. In contrast NATO forces 400kms away from Moscow are a direct threat to long term survival of Russian state, so why Russia should by shy of using nuclear weapons when the very survival of the state in the long-run is at risk?

1) Winston Churchill- the Great Hero of the West- wanted to nuke Soviet Union in 1940s for the purpose of preserving Western hegemony.
2) General Doughlas MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against China during the Korean War.
3) Americans were ready to start WWIII when Soviets deployed military bases in Cuba and Curtis Lemay wanted to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.
4) Americans considered using nuclear weapons in Vietnam
5) Israel considered using nuclear weapons in 1973 Yom Kippur War even despite the fact that their nuclear weapons capability were not fully developed.

So why Russia should tolerate 700.000 NATO troops near its cities of Belgorod and Bryansk and only 400kms away from Moscow? Last time Russia shared a border with an adversary in 1941- 27mln people died and the state itself was nearly destroyed...Why Russia should compromise the long-term security of its people?

If Americans were in Russian place, after suffering defeats in 2022, they would have already nuked Ukraine multiple times and by today, instead of Oppenheimer, they would have already filmed a movie about heroic American pilots saving Democracy and Freedom by nuking hostile cities.

Russia should make an Ultimatum to Zelensky- accept a reasonable demand of a Demilitarized Zone or Russia will use nuclear weapons.

City of Lvov, whose population hates Russians the most can be the target. People of Lvov will have time to leave the city. A 5Kt nuclear blast, slightly more powerful than the Mossad made Beirut explosion of 2020, will destroy the city if Zelensky will not accept the Ultimatum and all blood will be on his hands.

West will be shocked, and not willing further escalation to WWIII with nuclear exchange, will decrease the level of support to Ukraine and put pressure on Zelensky to accept Russian demands.

Next cities will be on the list if Ukraine does not capitulate. Americans did like that with Japan during WWII

This will end the war quickly and with minimum costs and casualties on BOTH sides and with Russian victory.

All is fair in love and war.....

But Russian President, whose state's long term survival prospects are at risk, is worried what the West will think and say and instead of using nuclear weapons, prefers to fight a 5 year war with 500.000 casualties at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and without any victory.
Sorry but Russia won't use nukes because it would be known that they are the 2nd country to do so after the U.S. and even their own people would be horrified. Even the world would be horrified and support for Ukraine will increase dramatically. Another is doubting that NATO won't intervene, they sure as hell will since it would only encourage Putin to do it again when he doesn't get what he wants especially the Baltics and Poland besides Ukraine. Remember what Putin has done to the neighboring countries next to Russia. If Putin uses nukes on Ukraine, even if Ukraine is not a NATO member, NATO will easily start dropping bombs and wiping out the Russian forces in Ukraine and setting up a no fly zone while Ukrainian ground forces with the help of massive air support will advance and retake territory quicker.

This is WAR. 250.000 Russians are dead and wounded. Is this joke for you? Russia is losing. You ask me how old am I, but you don't ask how old is Joe Biden and US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or US Defense Secretary when they discuss the same things as me? Don't you?

If there are public discussions of potential usage of nukes by Russia on the highest level of US government and military, including US President himself, than such possibility is real and not some fanfiction.
So what? Russia lost Afghanistan, didn't use nukes. And the most they can lose is parts of Ukraine where they took territory and already lost some of it since March of last year. Is it the end of the world for Russia? No, not for a country that's about 30 times bigger than Ukraine. The best the world can hope for is Russia get out of Ukraine and we can move on.
 
.
Sorry but Russia won't use nukes because it would be known that they are the 2nd country to do so after the U.S. and even their own people would be horrified. Even the world would be horrified and support for Ukraine will increase dramatically. Another is doubting that NATO won't intervene, they sure as hell will since it would only encourage Putin to do it again when he doesn't get what he wants especially the Baltics and Poland besides Ukraine. Remember what Putin has done to the neighboring countries next to Russia. If Putin uses nukes on Ukraine, even if Ukraine is not a NATO member, NATO will easily start dropping bombs and wiping out the Russian forces in Ukraine and setting up a no fly zone while Ukrainian ground forces with the help of massive air support will advance and retake territory quicker.


So what? Russia lost Afghanistan, didn't use nukes. And the most they can lose is parts of Ukraine where they took territory and already lost some of it since March of last year. Is it the end of the world for Russia? No, not for a country that's about 30 times bigger than Ukraine. The best the world can hope for is Russia get out of Ukraine and we can move on.
I understand that US has dealt with the likes of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan for a long period of time and now you live in delusion that Russia is some sort of another Libya, but Russia is not in that Class of countries.

Russia is a country in a Rank of a World Power. Russia is not the kind of a country whom you can dictate your Red Lines or impose No-Fly zones like in Libya without FACING SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES.

I understand your delusion when you think the world revolves around US and the West, and you are the only one who establish the rules, bomb other countries and impose Red Lines, but this is not like that at all.

Russia is not the kind of country that needs lectures from the West of what it can do and what it can't.

It was not CSTO that expanded its borders to Mexico for the purpose of creating strategic threat to US. It was NATO that decided to ignore Russia's core strategic interests and expand its borders to 400kms away from Moscow.

If today NATO wants to impose its rules and unjustified red lines and say that if Russia does this or that in Ukraine, NATO will intervene and bomb Russian forces....What will happen tomorrow when Ukraine joins NATO and NATO positions its forces 400kms away from Moscow? NATO will say, if Russia does this or that, NATO will attack Russian targets in Moscow...This shows why Russia's war against Ukraine is justified by Russia's National Security Concerns.

I understand that fanboys of this forum like to watch videos of how young Russians are dying on the front of this WAR and they don't care that Russian casualties have climbed to 250.000 troops including 70.000 dead, which is more than US loses in Vietnam/Iraq1991/Iraq2003/Yugoslavia/Libya/Afghanistan COMBINED...

They will not even care if Russian casualties climb to 500.000 in the next two years. But because they don't care doesn't mean that Russia and Russians don't care.

Now if this war lasts for two more years, Russia can lose this war and suffer another 250.000 casualties, but Russia is not ready to accept another 250.000 casualties, defeat and humiliation.

Of course in current circumstances you can take a lesson from American teachers of how to end the war quickly, with minimum costs and casualties and with victory by learning about US behavior towards Japan in 1945.

If you think that in current dire circumstances Russia using tactical nuclear weapons against the enemy (that inflicted 250.000 casualties on Russia) is not a reality, than maybe you will listen to US Colonel and US President?

Col.Daniel Davis: Russia will use nuclear weapons under these two circumstances.

Biden says threat of Putin using tactical nuclear weapons is 'real'

And now if we assume Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine for the purpose of preventing its defeat and humiliation OR enforcing capitulation of the enemy...what will be NATO's reaction?

First of all Russia is NOT attacking NATO territory and is NOT shooting at NATO troops. What happens between Russia and Ukraine should not be US concern or NATO concern since they have no any obligations to Ukraine and in such circumstances aggression by NATO against Russia will be totally unjustified.

People are under influence of Western propaganda and say that NATO will strike Russian military, if Russia uses nukes in a country that NATO has zero obligations to protect. If you think that you can bomb Russia like Libya and Russia will accept its defeat and humiliation and not respond- then you are wrong. You don't understand that any strike by NATO at Russian military will be an ACT OF WAR. It will certainly trigger an escalatory spiral that will lead to WWIII and potentially to nuclear exchange that can kill hundreds of millions of people and it will be NATO's fault, because it was them who started the escalatory spiral by shooting at Russian military in act of unprovoked and reckless aggression.

But if you want to fight WWIII and die because of East European Brothel named Ukraine, whom you have zero obligations to protect, so be it.....At least Russia can kill 954mln inhabitants of the West, while the West can kill only 150mln Russians....
 
Last edited:
.
LOL NATO is shit. Go! Throw the bomb! Then we all will know...for a short time in what we will be to blinded to see.

as a German kindly stay quite over Russian military matters, your track record speaks volumes against Russia same for French
 
.
as a German kindly stay quite over Russian military matters, your track record speaks volumes against Russia same for French

I dont care who throw the bomb first. The fact is that all the arseholes around are dead too.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom