Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

[Vergennes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1524327855924158465

 

[Wergeland]

Hot air from Russia.

Do tell where do Russians get these soldiers to make Finland contested territory? Thei best soldiers are getting mauled in Ukraine and what they got left elsewhere is second rate.

Youre missing the point.

Russia can afford to send millions of soldiers to the battlefield if it has to fight a existential threat. On the other hand Russia dosent have to send thousands of soldiers in order to create problems for Finland. They only have to fire a few weapons in order to crush the Finnish economy.

The question remain why on earth does Finland want to risk everything they have built in order to gain so little? Its not like Russia is amassing massive Army right outside Finnish border as we speak.

Russia is avdancing in Ukraine, every week they control more territory. Thats a fact. Not all wars are like German Panzerfaust blitzwar or First Gulf War. Some wars are fought over decadades and decades. Heck some even lasts for centuries.

If Russia attacks Finland immidiately before it is acceded into NATO, very likely USA wont directly involve itself in the conflict, just like in Ukraine.

 

[thetutle]

Most Police department in the US have thousand of Body Protection equipment. Big department like LAPD would have 20-30,000 set of Personal Protection giving their department size (Think they have around 20000 officer), every police officer have plate carrier and ballistic helmet these day. Hell, I have had over 100 set of Body Armour and Helmet.

Also Illinois State Police does not have jurisdiction in Chicago, Chicago PD in charge of city of Chicago, and CPD is about 6-8 times the size of ISP

Right, so Chicago PD is about the strength of the Austrian Army.

Why do the Finns want to risk their fortunes for a non-existing threat? The Russians arent interested in conqouring Finland. Theyre happy with the current set-up where Finns are neutral.

ehehehhheheheh hehehehe

If Finland seek NATO membership it is more likely for Russia to seek preventive measures.

yes, let them. Cant wait.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

Youre missing the point.

Russia can afford to send millions of soldiers to the battlefield if it has to fight a existential threat. On the other hand Russia dosent have to send thousands of soldiers in order to create problems for Finland. They only have to fire a few couple weapons in order to crush the Finnish economy.

The question remain why on earth does Finland whant to risk everything they have built in order to gain so little? Its not like Russia is amassing massive Army right outside Finnish border as we speak.

Russia is avdancing in Ukraine, every week they control more terroritory. Thats a fact. Not all wars are like German Panzerfaust blitzwar or First Gulf War. Some war are fought over decadades and decades. Heck some even lasts for centuries.

If Russia attacks Finland immidiately before it is acceded into NATO, very likely USA wont directly involve itself in the conflict, kust like in Ukraine.

Yes. Nations should act what is best for their nation's interest.

What is so good and the point of participating in an alliance that antagonized another one, in this case a nuclear superpower and eventually discovered Finland will be the first in line of fire?

From the 1945 till now Finland did not have any major issue with her security with Russia.

Any dispute is always settled without any conflict.

That is what the flaw democracy of the West brings them.

Closer to war. Ukraine is a good example. Her infrastructure, industries and cities are mainly destroyed.

 

[Corax]

So the US have a string of 'losses' against smaller countries, like how Russia is sort of 'losing' against Ukraine now. Is that how you see the US military?

I see similarities in both Russian and US armed forces when they are forced to fight wars of attrition against an enemy using dissimilar tactics and weapons, especially if it's a proxy war being supported by an apposing super power, i.e. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (both US and USSR invasions), and now Ukraine.

However, one key difference between you and the Russians is that the Russians still have a tougher stomach for losses and attrition warfare after WWII, you can't stomach that anymore, as demonstrated by your invasions in Vietnam, the Middle East, and Afghanistan.

If the Iraqis and the Taliban were given the same amount of support as you're given the Ukrainians, your defeats there would have been more bloody and quicker. You can only stomach a fight with weak ragtag enemies whose only real weapon is time and attrition.

The Russians will happily destroy themselves rather than admit defeat and run away, and that's what you're exploiting, given that Austin has openly admitted it.

 

[Sineva]

1,500 shootings per year in Chicago. Thats 4 per day.

That certainly sounds like a war zone to me m8,or an urban one at least.

Maybe the op below was meaning a different chicago,....maybe chicago vietnam....?

Illinois has Chicago. fatal shooting happens almost every night. Police has military gears.

 

[jhungary]

I know that. The Finns have strong defence forces, especially civil defence. Its our neigbor nordic nation after all.

Still, that dosent adress my previous point. By all respect Soviet in its heydays would have made mince meat of Finland, if it wanted to. But it left Finland alone. During all those peaceful years Finland grew economically and built a stable modern society.

Why do the Finns want to risk their fortunes for a non-existing threat? The Russians arent interested in conqouring Finland. Theyre happy with the current set-up where Finns are neutral.

If Finland seek NATO membership it is more likely for Russia to seek preventive measures.

Well, people think Russia will not attack Ukraine just 3 months ago. Those people also said "Why do Russian want to risk their fortunes for Ukraine?"

Now they did invaded Ukraine, and if you are a Finn, what would you think??

This is not "Non-exist" anymore when the land grabbing ambition from Russia is real, when they are actually invading another country, a country most Russia would considered as a Brother.

 

[Vergennes]

Youre missing the point.

Russia can afford to send millions of soldiers to the battlefield if it has to fight a existential threat. On the other hand Russia dosent have to send thousands of soldiers in order to create problems for Finland. They only have to fire a few weapons in order to crush the Finnish economy.

The question remain why on earth does Finland want to risk everything they have built in order to gain so little? Its not like Russia is amassing massive Army right outside Finnish border as we speak.

Russia is avdancing in Ukraine, every week they control more terroritory. Thats a fact. Not all wars are like German Panzerfaust blitzwar or First Gulf War. Some wars are fought over decadades and decades. Heck some even lasts for centuries.

If Russia attacks Finland immidiately before it is acceded into NATO, very likely USA wont directly involve itself in the conflict, just like in Ukraine.

Russia doesn't actually have the capabilities to invade a country like Finland where they have strong armed reserves,better equipped and organized than those in Ukraine and a strong sense of civil defense.

And with what forces do you actually expect the Russians to attack Finland ? They are stretched thin already in Ukraine where a majority of their ground forces BTGs are mobilized,all those garrisons near Finland have been emptied....

You are acting as if it was WW2 where Russia could throw in millions and millions of soldiers in endless waves but wake up this is the 21st century. You can't easily replace an infantry soldier,a tankist,a pilot,a sailor it takes months if not years to get one ready.....

"Russia can mobilize millions of soldiers".... Today's Russians do not have the same resilience as in tsarist or soviet times,they will refuse to be sent as cannon fodder in pointless wars.... they are already dodging draft and burning army recruitment centers.... and with what training exactly and which equipments ? "They have huge equipments reserves". What Russia counts as "reserves" are just huge junkyards with non operational antiquities that probably can't be put back into service.

"Wars can last decades or years". Of course. But can Russia afford such a long and bloody war ? On the long term,no. Ukrainians have nothing to lose. The Russians,do.

 

[jhungary]

Youre missing the point.

Russia can afford to send millions of soldiers to the battlefield if it has to fight a existential threat. On the other hand Russia dosent have to send thousands of soldiers in order to create problems for Finland. They only have to fire a few weapons in order to crush the Finnish economy.

The question remain why on earth does Finland want to risk everything they have built in order to gain so little? Its not like Russia is amassing massive Army right outside Finnish border as we speak.

Russia is avdancing in Ukraine, every week they control more territory. Thats a fact. Not all wars are like German Panzerfaust blitzwar or First Gulf War. Some wars are fought over decadades and decades. Heck some even lasts for centuries.

If Russia attacks Finland immidiately before it is acceded into NATO, very likely USA wont directly involve itself in the conflict, just like in Ukraine.

US had already openly offered Security Assurance to Finland and Sweden, if they decided to join NATO.

Also, even if that is Ukraine like weapon deal, Finland are trained with a lot of Advance Western Weapon, just imagine US sending the 500+ Legacy Hornet to Finland which they were trained to fly or even F-35 to Finland. That would be 10 times more harder to crack than trying it on a "Soviet Weapon" using Ukraine.

And finally, the Finland landscape is not the same as Ukraine, where they have an open field in the East, it would be cold mountain waiting on the Russian should they engage the Finns. That would be Winter War 2.0 but this time with the entire Europe Backing, I mean you saw how much the EU and US supplies the Ukrainian, think what the Finn is going to get in case of a war between Russia and Finland??

And I just spend 6 weeks (well, 40 days) in Ukraine and just got back yesterday, trust me when I say this, Russia is NOT gaining more ground everyweek. They gain some and lose some, and that's a very generous assessment on the field, and yes, I have been to Kharkiv.

 

[Wergeland]

Well, people think Russia will not attack Ukraine just 3 months ago. Those people also said "Why do Russian want to risk their fortunes for Ukraine?"

Now they did invaded Ukraine, and if you are a Finn, what would you think??

This is not "Non-exist" anymore when the land grabbing ambition from Russia is real, when they are actually invading another country, a country most Russia would considered as a Brother.

Ukraine was infiltrated by USA , Poland and UK. It was steadily moved away from being a Russian friendly to a anti-Russian land. Ukraine could have choosen a neutral stance and gotten away with it but it went full retard.

Using your own logic. Why did not Russia attack Ukraine until now? Ukraine was independent since end of cold war. The answer is simple; Ukraine wasnt a threat to Russia until mid 2010s when all that slowly started to changed.

 

[jhungary]

Ukraine was infiltrated by USA , Poland and UK. It was steadily moved away from being a Russian friendly to a anti-Russian land. Ukraine could have choosen a neutral stance and gotten away with it but it went full retard.

Using your own logic. Why did not Russia attack Ukraine until now? Ukraine was independent since end of cold war. The answer is simple; Ukraine wasnt a threat to Russia until mid 2010s when all that slowly started to changed.

Sure, blame the country being invaded for being invaded. What if Ukraine moving away from Russia, does that somehow justify Russian invasion??

Threat? What Threat? If a country sovereignty is a threat to another country, then the sole existence of that country itself is a threat, are you telling me Ukraine have no right to exist and exercise their own sovereignty decision on who they trade with and who they align with? Ukraine was NOT part of Russia, and that is for a good reason. You don't invade a country because they are trying to join an alliance so they were not to be invaded.

If you think NATO is a threat to Russia, then I got news for you, NATO, with or without Ukraine, is ALWAYS going to be a threat on Russia, it is ALWAYS going to be on the 3 sides around Russia, adding Ukraine will not change this prospect because that line already have 2 NATO Member bordering Russia. On the other hand, you attack someone and then use that attack as a threat to another country so they don't join a foreign alliance? You either have to be really stupid or really naive or a bit of both to have it make sense, because you failed to see it is YOUR THREAT, not the threat you perceived against you, forcing these country to join NATO.

When Russia invade Ukraine, the entire "Russia is no threat and minding their own business so NATO have no reason to expand" argument goes right out of the window. Because Russia aren't minding their own business, unless you are claiming Putin is right, Ukraine itself have no right to exist and it belong to Russia.

Right, so Chicago PD is about the strength of the Austrian Army.


ehehehhheheheh hehehehe

yes, let them. Cant wait.

Meh CPD is shit........

Well, I should say their mayor (Lightfoot) is shit........

 

[Wergeland]

The no-fly zones were established to protect minorities from Saddams genocidal attacks on Shias and Kurds.

The Shias killed tens of thousand of Sunnis after Second Iraq War. All while the US looked the other way. Sunnis are still being opressed in Iraq today. Is the US gonna implement a new no-fly zone soon?

Wanna know the real reason behind Second Iraq War? The US simply wanted to make an example of a country by throwing it against a wall and showing the world who is the boss. Afghanistan was too small and had no real coventional Army. The Taliban went guerilla mode immidiately after the war.

Rumsfeld and Cheney reasoned that Afghanistan was a too easy target and did not send the message USA wanted to. Iraq was the perfect country for that. It had a coventional Army that was one of the strongest in arab world, atleast on paper.

Read the Leeden doctrine.
named after neoconservative historian Michael Ledeen. The “doctrine” states:
“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.”

Basically just bully tactics

 

[Wergeland]

US had already openly offered Security Assurance to Finland and Sweden, if they decided to join NATO.

Also, even if that is Ukraine like weapon deal, Finland are trained with a lot of Advance Western Weapon, just imagine US sending the 500+ Legacy Hornet to Finland which they were trained to fly or even F-35 to Finland. That would be 10 times more harder to crack than trying it on a "Soviet Weapon" using Ukraine.

And finally, the Finland landscape is not the same as Ukraine, where they have an open field in the East, it would be cold mountain waiting on the Russian should they engage the Finns. That would be Winter War 2.0 but this time with the entire Europe Backing, I mean you saw how much the EU and US supplies the Ukrainian, think what the Finn is going to get in case of a war between Russia and Finland??

And I just spend 6 weeks (well, 40 days) in Ukraine and just got back yesterday, trust me when I say this, Russia is NOT gaining more ground everyweek. They gain some and lose some, and that's a very generous assessment on the field, and yes, I have been to Kharkiv.

Russia fire 100 legacy cruise missiles (Yakhont etc.) and destroy critical infrastructure in Finland, ruining its economy. What is Finland gonna do?

Youre still missing my point.
Finland is capable of giving Russia a bloody nose, especially with NATO assitance in some form or another. We all know that. But the reality still remain; Finlands economy is destroyed.

I am arguing for policies that prevent war. Youre arguing for policies that may or may not make Finland win a war with Russia, which regardless will make Finland a war torn wasteland. See the difference?

Why are you guys so keen on fighting Russia on its smaller neighbors soil? Why arent you Americans fighting Russia directly if youre so frikkin brave. Getting on my nerves with all that false bravado.

Sure, blame the country being invaded for being invaded. What if Ukraine moving away from Russia, does that somehow justify Russian invasion??

Lol who are we trying to kid here.
You know there was a crisis during the 1960s when the entire world was on the brink of full blown nuclear holocaust. Because the US couldnt tolerate Soviet nuclear weapon 200 km off its southern coast.

 

[F-22Raptor]

Russia fire 100 legacy cruise missiles (Yakhont etc.) and destroy critical infrastructure in Finland, ruining its economy. What is Finland gonna do?

Youre still missing my point.
Finland is capable of giving Russia a bloody nose, especially with NATO assitance in some form or another. We all know that. But the reality still remain; Finlands economy is destroyed.

I am arguing for policies that prevent war. Youre arguing for policies that may or may not make Finland win a war with Russia, which regardless will make Finland a war torn wasteland. See the difference?

Why are you guys so keen on fighting Russia on its smaller neighbors soil? Why arent you Americans fighting Russia directly if youre so frikkin brave. Getting on my nerves with all that false bravado.



Lol who are we trying to kid here.
You know there was a crisis during the 1960s when the entire world was on the brink of full blown nuclear holocaust. Because the US couldnt tolerate Soviet nuclear weapont 200 km off its southern coast.

The US is destroying the Russian military without having to send a single soldier to Ukraine. I’d say that’s pretty brilliant.

 

[jhungary]

Russia fire 100 legacy cruise missiles (Yakhont etc.) and destroy critical infrastructure in Finland, ruining its economy. What is Finland gonna do?

Youre still missing my point.
Finland is capable of giving Russia a bloody nose, especially with NATO assitance in some form or another. But the reality still remain; Finlands economy is destroyed.

I am arguing for policies that prevent war. Youre arguing for policies that may or may not make Finland win a war with Russia, which regardless will make Finland a war torn wasteland.

Why are you guys so keen on fighting Russia on its smaller neighbors soil? Why arent you Americans fighting Russia directly if youre so frikkin brave. Getting on my nerves with all that false bravado.

lol, how much damage to Kyiv? After it had taken over 1000 missile/bomb over the last 72 days? Let me give you a hint, it's not much, as I said, I have just been there. You think 100 legacy cruise missile would make any different? First of all, not every missile you fire is going to hit their mark, it's 1 out of 4 missile if that is a US missile, and then there are some missile that is going to be intercepted. Which mean it left around 10-20% (If you are really good, not the case if you use legacy missile)

On the other hand, can you really destroy an economy with just Missile or Air Strike? The major issue with Ukrainian Economy is not from Russian air attacks, it is from the Russian Navy blockading the Black Sea and they can't run their grain export out. It have to be a physical step to destroy someone's economy, a few missile here and there, the damage is really limited. I don't know how much you think the mess a few hundred cruise missile is going to make, it's not that much, and it certainly not in a way it can destroy someone's economy.

On the other hand, you are discounting the Finnish capability to strike back and take out those launcher, or even ingress into Russian territories to kill those missile, like the SAS do to SCUD during the first gulf war. Even facing a sub-par enemy like Ukraine, Russian missile still did not perform their base, and you are looking at a on par adversary.

On the other hand, what I am talking about is not for Finland to win a war, What I am talking about is how or why Finland want to seek NATO membership, they are not in it to win a war with Russia, they are doing it to prevent a war from having 30 countries backing, and what I said is Russian is the reason why these country joined NATO.

Talking about "False Bravado" I am not the one that say "Russian can raise a million men army and trample Finland if they think anything stupid" That's false Bravado. I said what I think is right, I DO what I think is right, as I said, I have been in Ukraine in the last 6 weeks, have you been to comment on such an issue?? War is not some mere commentary you can just say, people died in war, and what you are saying here is basically hide behind those "Million Russian" and let them do your bidding. Maybe you should grow some balls and go join the fight with the Russian if you think NATO is a threat, and stop hiding behind a NATO country and pretending everything is A-OK.

Russian taking a stance behind their leader, that I understand, some Norwegian guy taking a stance behind Putin with no horse in it. That I don't understand, and then the same dude calling me out for "False Bravado" that's a LOL moment.