What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

a question , how USA negotiate ?
I would say we tends to be situational, meaning we will compromise if there are equal losses on both sides, but in situations like the Cuban Missile Crisis, we did not give. Economic inducements are our preferred method.
 
Problem is, the industrial might of Ukraine does not really exist, it's Western Weapon and Western Supplies that keep the war going for Ukraine, which mean, as I already stated, the attack on City will only manage to kill Civilian, which won't really demoralise the population, in fact it will most likely to fuel more hatred and speed up deployment process and for Ukrainian to speed run the conflict and end the war quicker.
that depends .
also Ukraine still have industry that use for maintaining those equipment. and also if you destroy electricity and energy and communication grid , it really can be devastating for ukraine . just think hoe you want maintain some cities without them .and more importantly
The Winter is Coming

I would say we tends to be situational, meaning we will compromise if there are equal losses on both sides, but in situations like the Cuban Missile Crisis, we did not give. Economic inducements are our preferred method.
don't you put all the possible economical and political pressure on the country then at the table , discuss on removing some of those pressure if they agree to your demands and after they do and you get what you wanted later again put those same pressure again and ask for something else

whats the difference in end result here with what Russia do , two tactic same shit
 
Well, they don't have NCO Corps, may not even have TOC.


There are virtually no chances to launch a nuclear attack.

It will not do enough damage to Ukrainian for them to stop, you may destory a city or 2, that will only make the civilian population suffer, not the military force, and the Russian objective is land grab, what good does it do to nuke the city they want to take? And finally, it may most likely provoke the west to attack, when you stack all these reasons together, you will see the chance of nuclear strike is almost zero.


Well, they died for toilet seat, sink, and TV. That's good enough.

I mean, what do you think they are expecting back home??
We don’t know what Putin is up to. He is obsessed with Ukraine land grab. If he will accept the military defeat. Ukraine should prepare for worst case scenario. The US, the Nato would notice immediately I think if Russia prepares a nuclear attack.
 
Last edited:
that depends .
also Ukraine still have industry that use for maintaining those equipment. and also if you destroy electricity and energy and communication grid , it really can be devastating for ukraine . just think hoe you want maintain some cities without them .and more importantly
The Winter is Coming
It won't make any difference.

There aren't really that many Ukrainian industry in Ukraine, most Western Equipment in Ukraine were maintain in Poland. NATO called for US and EU to send contractor to Ukraine and establish maintain depot and those felt on deaf ears.

As for Energy, Electricity and Communication Grid. First of all it is not something you can drop a few nuke and you will be completely able to destroy them, and Ukraine now very much depends on Satellite Communication, with Starlink for Civilian and SATCOM for military, it wouldn't make a different

And if you are already in the blast zone, winter is coming have no different than you are smack right in the middle of nuclear blast, and then if you are not, there may be some disruption but that's not really in a scale they can't pull thru. And in most case, any left over of civilian or non-essential population in Ukraine would probably going to be relocated to Europe or even North American had Russia nuke Ukraine.
 
As for Energy, Electricity and Communication Grid. First of all it is not something you can drop a few nuke and you will be completely able to destroy them, and Ukraine now very much depends on Satellite Communication, with Starlink for Civilian and SATCOM for military, it wouldn't make a different
you don't need nukes for that , just some well placed cruise missile do that for you . you don't need even attack power-planet , attacking distribution nodes is enough, to knock out the grid for several day and you can keep it up
star-link and sat-com need electricity , you cant win a war with emergency diesel generators

And if you are already in the blast zone, winter is coming have no different than you are smack right in the middle of nuclear blast, and then if you are not, there may be some disruption but that's not really in a scale they can't pull thru. And in most case, any left over of civilian or non-essential population in Ukraine would probably going to be relocated to Europe or even North American had Russia nuke Ukraine.
you have mistaken something , i already stated its premature to talk about nukes as there are many other option that are not used yet and what i said are those options.
 
usa also did those , the question is did they actually come in effect how many banking transaction happened after usa left JCPOA , i tell you instex only used once
You have to separate two things.
  1. Is there a law in the EU that blocks banking transactions
  2. Are there policies in place within banks that blocks banking transactions with Iran.
All private companies have the sovereign right to choose whether they want to do business with Iran or not, so the second thing does not violate the JPCOA.
The EU only violates agreements to lift sanctions if they actually punishes people for trading with Iran.

Seems like Your accusations so far are unfounded.
 
Back
Top Bottom