Putin reminds West of nuclear power, while asserting Russia's position on Ukraine

This guy is just a complete dick. As if anyone had forgotten they had nuclear weapons.

I'm as suspicious as anyone of the powers pushing Ukraine at the moment, but Putin seems to have dropped the ball.

He could have come out of this the squeaky clean saviour and yet chose to...well, be a dick.

The mere fact that he feels the need to remind the west means they probably don't take him very seriously.

originally posted by: auroraaus
a reply to: eriktheawful

He made you look

Maybe mattsawaufo thinks the 'bomb'was used in the korean war? maybe?

Oh, I only googled it to see if there was some crazy "I'm trying to rewrite history" web site or something he was going to quote.

I'm quite versed in history, and know that the US has never dropped a nuclear weapon on China.

I think at this time , no matter which side you stand on , the next big questions are


How far will "The West" go to support Ukraine . Will they go to war ?

Will Putin take action and will engage in war .

Then the next logical question , since we know the west is a multitude of nation , who will support Russia in the war ?

I hope that it does not come to this point , but at this point in time i can not see either side backing down since that would mean they would loose their face !

armakirais

originally posted by: Eyemin
a reply to: mattsawaufo

Lol... clearly you have no idea what you are talking about... Have you misspoken and trying to cover up your steps... If so fine, admit the mistake, or quit with vague 1950's and Nuclear drops on China crap.

Alright, I'm going to explain this but to understand you have to know the theory of multiverses. Lol. Nah it was on wikipedia but now I can't find it. Oops.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
Mr. Putin better like glass, because regardless of what he does, we (and our allies) would turn his entire country into it.

He keeps referring to "the West"... but forgets that it includes allies all around him.

~Namaste

What? Europe fits into Russia about 6-7 times..



And from 2013



Russia are not alone you know...

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: mattsawaufo

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: mattsawaufo

Hold on, did I not get the memo?
When did we nuke China?

In the 1950s I believe.

We threatened them, repeatedly, but no attack. As I said, no nation has threatened the use of nuclear weapons like the U.S. has Sixteen Nuclear Crises of the Cold War - University of Colorado

Oh you must mean while they were invading Hungary, Czechoslovakia, trying to put missiles in Cuba, arming Arab nations with Russian equipment and otherwise fomenting and instigating revolution on just about every continent on earth.

originally posted by: mattsawaufo

originally posted by: Eyemin
a reply to: mattsawaufo

Lol... clearly you have no idea what you are talking about... Have you misspoken and trying to cover up your steps... If so fine, admit the mistake, or quit with vague 1950's and Nuclear drops on China crap.

Alright, I'm going to explain this but to understand you have to know the theory of multiverses. Lol. Nah it was on wikipedia but now I can't find it. Oops.

Where you checking the "things that never happened" section on wiki?

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Iraqi proficiency with Russian weapon, tanks mainly, really wasn't a factor against our anti tank weapons and tanks. It wouldn't have mattered if they had been Russian troops with top tanks, some of which were used by the Iraqis on behalf of the Russians for a live fire test. Our anti tank air platforms can see and fire on Russian tanks so far out that the Russians, after their radar has been destroyed by same, cant even see them. Hard to overcome those sort of tactical advantages.

And the Russians really haven't upgraded enough to counter this factor.

Does anyone who debate these issues have any military experience?

First, proficiency and training does play a large factor. There are denial and deception tactics and strategies (camouflage and decoys for example) which has fooled the U.S. in the past (in the Gulf War as well), there are formations and movement patterns, techniques, tactics, and strategies...all designed to limit casualties in that manner.

Now, can we detect, fire upon, and destroy a Russian tank from distance? Yes, if everything goes perfectly and according to plan. Guess what? That does not always, actually, usually does not happen in a war. Systems go down, systems malfunctions, systems are limited by weather, system never perform as promised or wanted, systems are jammed. Anti armour weapons are quite good these days, but hey are only as good as the systems used to deliver them.

If I was an analyst for Russia this is what I would tell my superiors, and I can assure you Russia (China, Iran, North Korea) understands this already. 1) Recent wars demonstrates U.S. inability to confront, combat, and effectively deal with asymmetric/guirla warfare and tactics. To engage the U.S. on this level is to keep them distracted, busy, and confused. 2) U.S. systems and their entire Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) abilities are entirely too dependent on technology, satellites, and electrical power. Disrupt, degrade, deny, and/or entirely wipe out these sources would nearly blind their war effort.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Thanks for the Intel comrade.

The US gov has trouble started all over the world, don't they? Is Porky and friends and this coup in Ukraine really worth nuclear war? This is like being on a train that you know is about to plummet off the side of a cliff but you can't get off. Complete psychos in control of our lives. I think before anything bad happens, that American militias need to issue arrest warrants for all in US congress and start over.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: mattsawaufo

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: mattsawaufo

Hold on, did I not get the memo?
When did we nuke China?

In the 1950s I believe.

We threatened them, repeatedly, but no attack. As I said, no nation has threatened the use of nuclear weapons like the U.S. has Sixteen Nuclear Crises of the Cold War - University of Colorado

Oh you must mean while they were invading Hungary, Czechoslovakia, trying to put missiles in Cuba, arming Arab nations with Russian equipment and otherwise fomenting and instigating revolution on just about every continent on earth.

As opposed to the U.S. overthrowing a democratically elected official in Iran and instilling a dictator, giving weapons (to include chemical and biological), training, and funding to Saddam, supporting Pinochet in Chile, attempting multiple coups in Cuba as well as assassinations, Panama, Iran-Contra, an illegal war in Cambodia, Agent Orange, Depleted Uranium, and let's not forget the big one, creating the mujahideen to instigate trouble on the Soviet border and draw them into Afghanistan.

We can do this all day. I am not attempting to defend the U.S. or Russia. My points are you can't call one out without calling out the other. You can't claim the U.S. is some high and mighty democracy promoting country when our record is worse than most of the nations our government deplores. You can't claim the U.S. will be victorious in war with Russia without realizing the costs such a victory would have. ...and on and on and on.

originally posted by: EA006
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Thanks for the Intel comrade.

Any time, it is nothing new. These things have been, and are being debated in the open today. Simple searches should bring up everything I mentioned fairly quickly...or else I would have provided sources.

a reply to: daaskapital

History is a witness that an empire falls off the cliff right at its height of power, the same is foretold for Anglo American empire.

Putin's words are falling on deaf ears. The empire is hell bent on war against Russia. Russia has no choice in the matter.

NATO's is nothing but a tool of global domination. NATO has lost its relevance the day cold war ended. Admission of East European states have completely diluted its purpose.

NATO will break up along with EU. It's days are numbered.

The coming events will throw off every single calculation of the European powers.

People have no idea. Shooting mouths have been in vogue for too long. Now is the time to taste the real thing.

a reply to: mattsawaufo

"Nah it was on wikipedia but now I can't find it. Oops." I c... one of those what happens in wiki stays in wiki ...
Just teasing... I am sure it has happened to several members time and time again...

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Iraqi proficiency with Russian weapon, tanks mainly, really wasn't a factor against our anti tank weapons and tanks. It wouldn't have mattered if they had been Russian troops with top tanks, some of which were used by the Iraqis on behalf of the Russians for a live fire test. Our anti tank air platforms can see and fire on Russian tanks so far out that the Russians, after their radar has been destroyed by same, cant even see them. Hard to overcome those sort of tactical advantages.

And the Russians really haven't upgraded enough to counter this factor.

Does anyone who debate these issues have any military experience?

First, proficiency and training does play a large factor. There are denial and deception tactics and strategies (camouflage and decoys for example) which has fooled the U.S. in the past (in the Gulf War as well), there are formations and movement patterns, techniques, tactics, and strategies...all designed to limit casualties in that manner.

Yes I have plenty of military experience. You don't sound like you do nor do you sound like much of a student of modern warfare.

"In the Gulf War as well"? We destroyed quite an impressive array of hardware and mechanized unites, the 5th largest such army in the world at that time. They were simply obliterated. The whole of our primary armor unit, the Big Red 1 didn't suffer a single fatal casualty in the entire 1 week, LOL, campaign.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

The USA is going to be defeated in the coming world war, and with devastating consequences for its people.

Americans fail to learn the lessons of history. People who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

There is no benefit in world domination. USA has already achieved what could be achieved. There is nothing more possible. However its greed knows no bounds.

The indirect and direct threats against Asian powers are unlikely to help USA's cause.

As for Europeans, three generations of Europeans haven't fought in a war. The effectiveness of Europeans in war is doubtful at best.

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: mattsawaufo

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: mattsawaufo

Hold on, did I not get the memo?
When did we nuke China?

In the 1950s I believe.

We threatened them, repeatedly, but no attack. As I said, no nation has threatened the use of nuclear weapons like the U.S. has Sixteen Nuclear Crises of the Cold War - University of Colorado

Oh you must mean while they were invading Hungary, Czechoslovakia, trying to put missiles in Cuba, arming Arab nations with Russian equipment and otherwise fomenting and instigating revolution on just about every continent on earth.

We can do this all day. I am not attempting to defend the U.S. or Russia. My points are you can't call one out without calling out the other. You can't claim the U.S. is some high and mighty democracy promoting country when our record is worse than most of the nations our government deplores. You can't claim the U.S. will be victorious in war with Russia without realizing the costs such a victory would have. ...and on and on and on.

I am not really calling anyone out but answering your point that the US has threatened with nukes more than any other country. Just pointing out that its not like we didn't have good reason. The Russians never really see they way they are anyway during those days. Belligerent, aggressive, promoting a worldwide take over, prophets of communism around the globe at the point of a gun.

As far as victory over Russia, who's talking about invading Russia? We could stop at the Ukrainian border.

a reply to: Logarock

Bluster is not a replacement of results. The military victory in Iraq and Afghanistan were impressive but what happened thereafter was not.

However problem is that your adversaries have learnt from your war performance. They have built weapons since to fight effectively with your armies.

You cannot count on your past victories anymore.

Soon time will come when your aircraft carriers will no more look formidable as several go down in a single day. The smart people avoid such eventualities and not resort to bluster.

It is time to realize the limits of your military power. There is no benefit of causing pain to your own population and to others just for ego of some elite.

originally posted by: GargIndia
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

The USA is going to be defeated in the coming world war, and with devastating consequences for its people.

Americans fail to learn the lessons of history. People who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

Learn what? That Hitler and Napoleon were stupid men driven by hubris? And whats the real lesson there? Russia has cold winters?