Putin Gives Ominous Nuclear Triad Warning (msn.com)

This is the media BS that causes fear. Read the article, Putin met with Military Grads and discussed

"covered matters relating to the country's military capabilities, potential cooperation with NATO, and was characteristic of the angle Russia has taken toward the West for the past two years."

The Headline could have just as easily been "Putin discusses potential cooperation with NATO". But, the fearmongering press choose the other.

"Putin said: "We plan to further develop the nuclear triad as a guarantee of strategic deterrence and maintaining the balance of power in the world."

Of course they do, they do it now. We do it now. MAAD is based on that. That is not news OR a threat. It has been the reality for 70 years. I would expect nothing less.


The cooperation with NATO discussion, that is what would peak my attention. What message is he sending? Especially the timing after his N Korea tour. Personally, I think Putin will try to bridge back to NATO because he knows one of the things sitting at the table is different than the other. Putin is European Russian, not Asian. Because no matter what Russia will be the odd man out of any China alliance. What the hell did he learn in N Korea...

Watch, bet he starts trying to mend fences. Will West and Ukraine let him do it and save face???

Russia tells US: we need to talk, but Ukraine must be on agenda (msn.com)

I saw an article a couple of days ago describing the turtles as an example of Russian adaptation to new realities on the battlefield. On close inspection, it looks like they just slapped bubble gum & bailing wire on 60 year old tank and called it innovation.

Let's get the full lowdown on the Russian mobile farm shed! The tank captured by the 🇺🇦22nd Mechanized Brigade is unboxed! pic.twitter.com/x1uNq6tyx8

— Challenger Tank In Ukraine🇬🇧🇺🇦 (@ChallengerInUA) June 22, 2024

whiterock said:

---

I saw an article a couple of days ago describing the turtles as an example of Russian adaptation to new realities on the battlefield. On close inspection, it looks like they just slapped bubble gum & bailing wire on 60 year old tank and called it innovation.

Let's get the full lowdown on the Russian mobile farm shed! The tank captured by the 🇺🇦22nd Mechanized Brigade is unboxed! pic.twitter.com/x1uNq6tyx8

— Challenger Tank In Ukraine🇬🇧🇺🇦 (@ChallengerInUA) June 22, 2024

---

And they are saying that the M1A1 is having problems with that??? Who the hell trained those guys? Are they even up to our National Guard level of training? This can't be what Putin has...

I don't think people understand what Russia would face if NATO was involved. The combined forces doctrine, training and equipment is in a different galaxy. The only modern force that faced something in that ballpark was Iraq.

The democrats, neocons, and government-americans who support World War 3 often compare Putin to Hitler and falsely claim that modern Russia is an expansionist power intent on invading the Baltics, Poland, and western Europe. Nothing could be further from the truth. as this interesting analysis of Russian defense spending indicates:

"The answer is no, and its based on what should be called the double-digit rule. The true expansionary hegemons of modern history have spent huge parts of their GDP on defense because that's what it takes to support the military infrastructure and logistics required for invasion and occupation of foreign lands.

For instance, here are the figures for military spending by Nazi Germany from 19351944 expressed as a percent of GDP. This is what an aggressive hegemon looks like in the ramp-up to war and the actual conduct of military campaigns of invasion and occupation.

Not surprisingly, the same kind of claim on resources occurred when the United States took it upon itself to counter the aggression of Germany and Japan on a global basis. By 1944 defense spending was equal to 40% of America's GDP, and would have totaled more than $2 trillion in present day dollars of purchasing power.

Military Spending As A Percent Of GDP In Nazi Germany

1935: 8%.
1936: 13%.
1937: 13%.
1938: 17%.
1939: 23%.
1940: 38%.
1941: 47%.
1942: 55%.
1943: 61%.
1944: 75%

By contrast, during the final year before the Ukraine proxy war broke out in 2022, the Russian military budget was $65 billion, which amounted to just 3.5% of its GDP. Moreover, the prior years showed no build-up of the kind that has always accompanied historic aggressors. For the period 1992 to 2022, for instance, the average military spending by Russia was 3.8% of GDP with a minimum of 2.7% in 1998 and a maximum of 5.4% in 2016.

Needless to say, you don't invade the Baltics or Poland to say nothing of Germany, France, the Benelux and crossing the English Channelon 3.5% of GDP. Since full scale war broke out in 2022 Russian military spending has increased significantly to 6% of GDP."

Even at this level it falls far short of what an expansionist nation would be spending. As the saying goes, figures don't lie (but liars figure).

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/david-stockman-ukrainian-border-war-folly

Realitybites said:

---

The democrats, neocons, and government-americans who support World War 3 often compare Putin to Hitler and falsely claim that modern Russia is an expansionist power intent on invading the Baltics, Poland, and western Europe. Nothing could be further from the truth. as this interesting analysis of Russian defense spending indicates:

"The answer is no, and its based on what should be called the double-digit rule. The true expansionary hegemons of modern history have spent huge parts of their GDP on defense because that's what it takes to support the military infrastructure and logistics required for invasion and occupation of foreign lands.

For instance, here are the figures for military spending by Nazi Germany from 19351944 expressed as a percent of GDP. This is what an aggressive hegemon looks like in the ramp-up to war and the actual conduct of military campaigns of invasion and occupation.

Not surprisingly, the same kind of claim on resources occurred when the United States took it upon itself to counter the aggression of Germany and Japan on a global basis. By 1944 defense spending was equal to 40% of America's GDP, and would have totaled more than $2 trillion in present day dollars of purchasing power.

Military Spending As A Percent Of GDP In Nazi Germany

1935: 8%.
1936: 13%.
1937: 13%.
1938: 17%.
1939: 23%.
1940: 38%.
1941: 47%.
1942: 55%.
1943: 61%.
1944: 75%

By contrast, during the final year before the Ukraine proxy war broke out in 2022, the Russian military budget was $65 billion, which amounted to just 3.5% of its GDP. Moreover, the prior years showed no build-up of the kind that has always accompanied historic aggressors. For the period 1992 to 2022, for instance, the average military spending by Russia was 3.8% of GDP with a minimum of 2.7% in 1998 and a maximum of 5.4% in 2016.

Needless to say, you don't invade the Baltics or Poland to say nothing of Germany, France, the Benelux and crossing the English Channelon 3.5% of GDP. Since full scale war broke out in 2022 Russian military spending has increased significantly to 6% of GDP."

Even at this level it falls far short of what an expansionist nation would be spending. As the saying goes, figures don't lie (but liars figure).

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/david-stockman-ukrainian-border-war-folly

---

Wow, that clears it up!

So there are no Russian troops and tanks in Ukraine trying to take Donbas? In 2014 Russia didn't annex Crimea? Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't another word for taking land and adding to yours be, maybe, expand... Another way, Russia is bigger now since adding Crimea than it was in 2013 before it annexed Crimea. Usually that is considered an expansion of the Nation. More after, less before...

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Its not that I want to allow Russia to take Ukraine.

I want a peace deal and I want Russia to adapt to the west without war through diplomacy. You guys want to annihilate Russia because its simpler or because you have fears about Russia. Honestly if that's your position then logically you should advocate for a direct hot war with Russia so that this never becomes a problem again...but for whatever reason, you don't agree and you're perfectly aligned with a forever war mentality.

The risks of this war is too much money being spent, we don't have the ammunitions or development to handle it. It goes on far too long. It gets out of control and ultimately because war is evil and not the only avenue to pursue.

---

I want Russia beaten because they don't know diplomacy, don't respect anyone showing weakness, and will never ally or adapt with the West unless and until they are truly humbled on the world stage.

---

Russia will fall back, build themselves back up and go right back to doing the same things perpetually.

Those things warrant a direct hot war where the west destroys Russia to the extent that they can never recover. How ya'll have these opinions of Russia but won't outright call for a hot war seems like you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. You're aligned with a forever war attitude.

Seems to me your actual solution is WW3 so this isn't a persistent problem.

How do you know for a fact that Ukraine will defeat Russia?

---

There's a latent false dilemma in your premise. It will not take Western involvement to defeat Russia. Ukraine can defeat Russia by simply outlasting them (thanks to Western support for Ukraine).

Russia has collapsed with armies in the field before......

---

Im talking about destruction of all of Russia. Meaning attacking every major area of their country and seizing total control.

Ukraine can't do that.

---

agreed. fortunately, they don't have to. Russia has collapsed before with its armies in the field. That is the model we are pursuing here with the "as long as it takes" approach. Just logistically outlast them. It is far more viable than the war policy opponents are willing to admit.

And then there are the Russophobes like Zelensky for whom such notions are like crosses and holy water to a vampire.

---

FIFY

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Its not that I want to allow Russia to take Ukraine.

I want a peace deal and I want Russia to adapt to the west without war through diplomacy. You guys want to annihilate Russia because its simpler or because you have fears about Russia. Honestly if that's your position then logically you should advocate for a direct hot war with Russia so that this never becomes a problem again...but for whatever reason, you don't agree and you're perfectly aligned with a forever war mentality.

The risks of this war is too much money being spent, we don't have the ammunitions or development to handle it. It goes on far too long. It gets out of control and ultimately because war is evil and not the only avenue to pursue.

---

I want Russia beaten because they don't know diplomacy, don't respect anyone showing weakness, and will never ally or adapt with the West unless and until they are truly humbled on the world stage.

---

Russia will fall back, build themselves back up and go right back to doing the same things perpetually.

Those things warrant a direct hot war where the west destroys Russia to the extent that they can never recover. How ya'll have these opinions of Russia but won't outright call for a hot war seems like you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. You're aligned with a forever war attitude.

Seems to me your actual solution is WW3 so this isn't a persistent problem.

How do you know for a fact that Ukraine will defeat Russia?

---

There's a latent false dilemma in your premise. It will not take Western involvement to defeat Russia. Ukraine can defeat Russia by simply outlasting them (thanks to Western support for Ukraine).

Russia has collapsed with armies in the field before......

---

Im talking about destruction of all of Russia. Meaning attacking every major area of their country and seizing total control.

Ukraine can't do that.

---

No one is talking the destruction of all Russia. Just staying within their borders would be a start. Allowing other Nations to decide what they want to do would be another. Two VERY EASY, cheap things.

---

If it's so easy, why can't the US do it?

There are 3-5 guys on this free message board who desperately need to go white water rafting for a week on the Yampa River.

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, where are we that we are not wanted? Simple answer Sam

---

Well, Okinawa and Guantanamo for starters. There are probably others. That's not really the point. Large, influential nations do things. Wise leaders of large, influential nations avoid doing things on the front porch of other large, influential nations. Particularly ones with world ending nuclear aresnals. Cuba/Kruschev was that for us, Ukraine is that for Russia, and Taiwan is that for China.

You can go on Aliexpress and have a Chinese cell phone shipped to your door for a fraction of the cost of a device from Samsung or Apple if you know where to look. In many cases it will be a better phone with features and battery life the handsets from the big two don't offer. So why should I pay a leftist middleman in California 800-1000 dollars for his Chinese phones when I can get one from the source for 300-500, particularly when he is actively deploying the considerable wealth of the company he leads to attack and undermine the things in America that I love and believe in (a widespread problem among the fortune 500)? This paragraph is a bit of a tangent, but is intended to give you an idea of how much the world has changed in the past two decades.

Realitybites said:

---

The democrats, neocons, and government-americans who support World War 3 often compare Putin to Hitler and falsely claim that modern Russia is an expansionist power intent on invading the Baltics, Poland, and western Europe. Nothing could be further from the truth. as this interesting analysis of Russian defense spending indicates:

"The answer is no, and its based on what should be called the double-digit rule. The true expansionary hegemons of modern history have spent huge parts of their GDP on defense because that's what it takes to support the military infrastructure and logistics required for invasion and occupation of foreign lands.

For instance, here are the figures for military spending by Nazi Germany from 19351944 expressed as a percent of GDP. This is what an aggressive hegemon looks like in the ramp-up to war and the actual conduct of military campaigns of invasion and occupation.

Not surprisingly, the same kind of claim on resources occurred when the United States took it upon itself to counter the aggression of Germany and Japan on a global basis. By 1944 defense spending was equal to 40% of America's GDP, and would have totaled more than $2 trillion in present day dollars of purchasing power.

Military Spending As A Percent Of GDP In Nazi Germany

1935: 8%.
1936: 13%.
1937: 13%.
1938: 17%.
1939: 23%.
1940: 38%.
1941: 47%.
1942: 55%.
1943: 61%.
1944: 75%

By contrast, during the final year before the Ukraine proxy war broke out in 2022, the Russian military budget was $65 billion, which amounted to just 3.5% of its GDP. Moreover, the prior years showed no build-up of the kind that has always accompanied historic aggressors. For the period 1992 to 2022, for instance, the average military spending by Russia was 3.8% of GDP with a minimum of 2.7% in 1998 and a maximum of 5.4% in 2016.

Needless to say, you don't invade the Baltics or Poland to say nothing of Germany, France, the Benelux and crossing the English Channelon 3.5% of GDP. Since full scale war broke out in 2022 Russian military spending has increased significantly to 6% of GDP."

Even at this level it falls far short of what an expansionist nation would be spending. As the saying goes, figures don't lie (but liars figure).

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/david-stockman-ukrainian-border-war-folly

---

theyre currently running in thr 15-20% defense spending in terms of GDP. So yes, they are on that footing. They thought they could roll into Ukraine and the Ukrainians would welcome them with open arms.

First, not sure where you're getting your numbers.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russia-plans-huge-defence-spending-hike-2024-bloomberg-2023-09-22/

"Russia plans a huge hike in defence spending next year, swelling to 6% of gross domestic product (GDP), up from 3.9% in 2023 and 2.7% in 2021, Bloomberg News reported on Friday.
Reuters could not immediately verfiy the report. Moscow doubled its target for defence spending in 2023 to more than $100 billion, Reuters reported exclusively in August, as the costs of the war in Ukraine spiral and place growing strain on Moscow's finances."

Second, even if it has doubled from there to 15%, in mid 2024 there's a big difference between ramping up defense spending for a war of conquest and an unplanned hike in it in the face of a possible confrontation with NATO and terrorist attacks on your territory by your enemy raising the specter of having to fully capture and demilitarize its territory.

The pattern of defense spending by Russia does not support the "Stalin's tanks are going to roll through Poland!" fearmongering.

The BBC is reporting that 4 Russian civilians ( including 2 children ) were killed and 150 wounded by US made missiles launched by Ukraine.

Russia is claiming US specialists operated the missiles and that they were guided by US satellites.

Putin reportedly has promised a ' response '.



Time is running out. Reality is approaching day by day.


Joe Biden and his handlers are dragging the US into war with the country possessing the most hydrogen bombs on the entire planet.

Drop the foolish the Rambo / video game mentality and tell your representatives to stop this insanity.

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The BBC is reporting that 4 Russian civilians ( including 2 children ) were killed and 150 wounded by US made missiles launched by Ukraine.

Russia is claiming US specialists operated the missiles and that they were guided by US satellites.

Putin reportedly has promised a ' response '.



Time is running out. Reality is approaching day by day.


Joe Biden and his handlers are dragging the US into war with the country possessing the most hydrogen bombs on the entire planet.

Drop the foolish the Rambo / video game mentality and tell your representatives to stop this insanity.

---

Awww, little Vlady, whose troops rape, kidnap, and murder Ukrainian women and children, got his feelings hurt . . . so sad . . . .

Has he blamed us for the terrorist attacks yet?

---

You just can't be this stupid.

Can you not connect the dots and evaluate where this could lead ?



Just how long before the Russian people demand an attack on US targets ?


If the Mexican drug cartels were killing US civilians with Russian supplied and Russian guided missiles.....
just how long would the US president wait for a response ?

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The BBC is reporting that 4 Russian civilians ( including 2 children ) were killed and 150 wounded by US made missiles launched by Ukraine.

Russia is claiming US specialists operated the missiles and that they were guided by US satellites.

Putin reportedly has promised a ' response '.



Time is running out. Reality is approaching day by day.


Joe Biden and his handlers are dragging the US into war with the country possessing the most hydrogen bombs on the entire planet.

Drop the foolish the Rambo / video game mentality and tell your representatives to stop this insanity.

---

Awww, little Vlady, whose troops rape, kidnap, and murder Ukrainian women and children, got his feelings hurt . . . so sad . . . .

Has he blamed us for the terrorist attacks yet?

---

You just can't be this stupid.

Can you not connect the dots and evaluate where this could lead ?



Just how long before the Russian people demand an attack on US targets ?


If the Mexican drug cartels were killing US civilians with Russian supplied and Russian guided missiles.....
just how long would the US president wait for a response ?

---

Cry me a river. There will be no U.S./Russia war. Lil' Vlady's losing control of his country, so he resorts to the old Soviet strategy of blaming the U.S.

---

So you ignore the obvious comparison, past US history and the geo political realities and merely respond with the juvenile.......

Cry me a river


Good grief you are certainly stupid.

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, where are we that we are not wanted? Simple answer Sam

---

Well, Okinawa and Guantanamo for starters. There are probably others. That's not really the point. Large, influential nations do things. Wise leaders of large, influential nations avoid doing things on the front porch of other large, influential nations. Particularly ones with world ending nuclear aresnals. Cuba/Kruschev was that for us, Ukraine is that for Russia, and Taiwan is that for China.

---

Its amazing how many guys on here are Baylor educated and yet have no idea that we are currently illegally occupying parts of Syria.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-americas-illegal-occupation-syria-now

[Washingtonians pretend to be shocked by what President Trump does, but it's Americans who should be shocked by what Washington doessuch as illegally intervening in Syria's civil war and occupying a third of that country. It's time for Donald Trump to do the right thing and bring our troops home.]

https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/6/15/23669622/syria-900-us-troops-forever-war-isis-assad

[Call it a forever war.

US troops are fighting ISIS in Syria. But Congress hasn't approved it, the public hardly knows about it, and it's not clear under what conditions the US would leave.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, where are we that we are not wanted? Simple answer Sam

---

Well, Okinawa and Guantanamo for starters. There are probably others. That's not really the point. Large, influential nations do things. Wise leaders of large, influential nations avoid doing things on the front porch of other large, influential nations. Particularly ones with world ending nuclear aresnals. Cuba/Kruschev was that for us, Ukraine is that for Russia, and Taiwan is that for China.

---

Its amazing how many guys on here are Baylor educated and yet have no idea that we are currently illegally occupying parts of Syria.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-americas-illegal-occupation-syria-now

[Washingtonians pretend to be shocked by what President Trump does, but it's Americans who should be shocked by what Washington doessuch as illegally intervening in Syria's civil war and occupying a third of that country. It's time for Donald Trump to do the right thing and bring our troops home.]

https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/6/15/23669622/syria-900-us-troops-forever-war-isis-assad

[Call it a forever war.

US troops are fighting ISIS in Syria. But Congress hasn't approved it, the public hardly knows about it, and it's not clear under what conditions the US would leave.]

---

We continue to be the world's policeman and it has never worked out.

Especially for those US servicemen doing the bleeding.

Of course a few hundred of our entrenched elites back in the states continue get richer.

But sooner rather than later a big bill for blood is going to be addressed to the American people.

And it will make 9-11 look like nothing.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, where are we that we are not wanted? Simple answer Sam

---

Well, Okinawa and Guantanamo for starters. There are probably others. That's not really the point. Large, influential nations do things. Wise leaders of large, influential nations avoid doing things on the front porch of other large, influential nations. Particularly ones with world ending nuclear aresnals. Cuba/Kruschev was that for us, Ukraine is that for Russia, and Taiwan is that for China.

---

Its amazing how many guys on here are Baylor educated and yet have no idea that we are currently illegally occupying parts of Syria.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-americas-illegal-occupation-syria-now

[Washingtonians pretend to be shocked by what President Trump does, but it's Americans who should be shocked by what Washington doessuch as illegally intervening in Syria's civil war and occupying a third of that country. It's time for Donald Trump to do the right thing and bring our troops home.]

https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/6/15/23669622/syria-900-us-troops-forever-war-isis-assad

[Call it a forever war.

US troops are fighting ISIS in Syria. But Congress hasn't approved it, the public hardly knows about it, and it's not clear under what conditions the US would leave.]

---

I read the articles and agree with a lot of them, but what do you mean by illegally occupying? Illegal according to what, and how do you define occupy, a term that has taken on all sorts of meanings?

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, where are we that we are not wanted? Simple answer Sam

---

Well, Okinawa and Guantanamo for starters. There are probably others. That's not really the point. Large, influential nations do things. Wise leaders of large, influential nations avoid doing things on the front porch of other large, influential nations. Particularly ones with world ending nuclear aresnals. Cuba/Kruschev was that for us, Ukraine is that for Russia, and Taiwan is that for China.

---

Its amazing how many guys on here are Baylor educated and yet have no idea that we are currently illegally occupying parts of Syria.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-americas-illegal-occupation-syria-now

[Washingtonians pretend to be shocked by what President Trump does, but it's Americans who should be shocked by what Washington doessuch as illegally intervening in Syria's civil war and occupying a third of that country. It's time for Donald Trump to do the right thing and bring our troops home.]

https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/6/15/23669622/syria-900-us-troops-forever-war-isis-assad

[Call it a forever war.

US troops are fighting ISIS in Syria. But Congress hasn't approved it, the public hardly knows about it, and it's not clear under what conditions the US would leave.]

---

I read the articles and agree with a lot of them, but what do you mean by illegally occupying? Illegal according to what, and how do you define occupy, a term that has taken on all sorts of meanings?

---

The simplest thing would be to ask if the sovereign government of a Nation has asked another power to leave its territory.

In this case the Government of Syria (that has been around since 1963) and that still controls 65% of the country and is recognized by the majority of States on earth has asked the USA to leave.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, where are we that we are not wanted? Simple answer Sam

---

Well, Okinawa and Guantanamo for starters. There are probably others. That's not really the point. Large, influential nations do things. Wise leaders of large, influential nations avoid doing things on the front porch of other large, influential nations. Particularly ones with world ending nuclear aresnals. Cuba/Kruschev was that for us, Ukraine is that for Russia, and Taiwan is that for China.

---

Its amazing how many guys on here are Baylor educated and yet have no idea that we are currently illegally occupying parts of Syria.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-americas-illegal-occupation-syria-now

[Washingtonians pretend to be shocked by what President Trump does, but it's Americans who should be shocked by what Washington doessuch as illegally intervening in Syria's civil war and occupying a third of that country. It's time for Donald Trump to do the right thing and bring our troops home.]

https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/6/15/23669622/syria-900-us-troops-forever-war-isis-assad

[Call it a forever war.

US troops are fighting ISIS in Syria. But Congress hasn't approved it, the public hardly knows about it, and it's not clear under what conditions the US would leave.]

---

I read the articles and agree with a lot of them, but what do you mean by illegally occupying? Illegal according to what, and how do you define occupy, a term that has taken on all sorts of meanings?

---

The simplest thing would be to ask if the sovereign government of a Nation has asked another power to leave its territory.

In this case the Government of Syria (that has been around since 1963) and that still controls 65% of the country and is recognized by the majority of States on earth has asked the USA to leave.

---

It's questionable whether our presence is illegal or an occupation. ISIS attacked us from Syria, and we're based in the semi-autonomous region. Don't get me wrong, I think we should leave. I'm just not convinced we're illegally occupying.

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The BBC is reporting that 4 Russian civilians ( including 2 children ) were killed and 150 wounded by US made missiles launched by Ukraine.

Russia is claiming US specialists operated the missiles and that they were guided by US satellites.

Putin reportedly has promised a ' response '.



Time is running out. Reality is approaching day by day.


Joe Biden and his handlers are dragging the US into war with the country possessing the most hydrogen bombs on the entire planet.

Drop the foolish the Rambo / video game mentality and tell your representatives to stop this insanity.

---

Awww, little Vlady, whose troops rape, kidnap, and murder Ukrainian women and children, got his feelings hurt . . . so sad . . . .

Has he blamed us for the terrorist attacks yet?

---

You just can't be this stupid.

Can you not connect the dots and evaluate where this could lead ?



Just how long before the Russian people demand an attack on US targets ?


If the Mexican drug cartels were killing US civilians with Russian supplied and Russian guided missiles.....
just how long would the US president wait for a response ?

---

so he can launch missiles at apartment buildings, markets, malls, hospitals, kidnap 100k children, rape tens of thousands of women, but something the US didn't even do is the US's fault. You're an absolute idiot if you can't see this is not our fault.

---

Yes

It's a brilliant idea to supply missiles for another country to use in killing the civilians of a nuclear power with whom we are not at war with.

Yet


Just how long do you really believe Putin is going to tolerate US actions ? Another month or year ?

Just how many Russian civilians need to die before the political realities force Putin's hand ?

And try to focus ……..we are risking all this on behalf of a country the US has never considered vital to its strategic defense.

But now, somehow, someway Ukraine is worth billions of dollars ( we have to borrow to provide) and worth risking nuclear war ( that no one on this free message board is willing to fight )

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The BBC is reporting that 4 Russian civilians ( including 2 children ) were killed and 150 wounded by US made missiles launched by Ukraine.

Russia is claiming US specialists operated the missiles and that they were guided by US satellites.

Putin reportedly has promised a ' response '.



Time is running out. Reality is approaching day by day.


Joe Biden and his handlers are dragging the US into war with the country possessing the most hydrogen bombs on the entire planet.

Drop the foolish the Rambo / video game mentality and tell your representatives to stop this insanity.

---

Awww, little Vlady, whose troops rape, kidnap, and murder Ukrainian women and children, got his feelings hurt . . . so sad . . . .

Has he blamed us for the terrorist attacks yet?

---

You just can't be this stupid.

Can you not connect the dots and evaluate where this could lead ?



Just how long before the Russian people demand an attack on US targets ?


If the Mexican drug cartels were killing US civilians with Russian supplied and Russian guided missiles.....
just how long would the US president wait for a response ?

---

Cry me a river. There will be no U.S./Russia war. Lil' Vlady's losing control of his country, so he resorts to the old Soviet strategy of blaming the U.S.

---

So you ignore the obvious comparison, past US history and the geo political realities and merely respond with the juvenile.......

Cry me a river


Good grief you are certainly stupid.

---

The stupidity is citing "past US history and geo political realities" as justifying Russia attackign US/Nato.

Past history and geopolitical realities clearly indicate exactly the opposite.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, where are we that we are not wanted? Simple answer Sam

---

Well, Okinawa and Guantanamo for starters. There are probably others. That's not really the point. Large, influential nations do things. Wise leaders of large, influential nations avoid doing things on the front porch of other large, influential nations. Particularly ones with world ending nuclear aresnals. Cuba/Kruschev was that for us, Ukraine is that for Russia, and Taiwan is that for China.

---

Its amazing how many guys on here are Baylor educated and yet have no idea that we are currently illegally occupying parts of Syria.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-americas-illegal-occupation-syria-now

[Washingtonians pretend to be shocked by what President Trump does, but it's Americans who should be shocked by what Washington doessuch as illegally intervening in Syria's civil war and occupying a third of that country. It's time for Donald Trump to do the right thing and bring our troops home.]

https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/6/15/23669622/syria-900-us-troops-forever-war-isis-assad

[Call it a forever war.

US troops are fighting ISIS in Syria. But Congress hasn't approved it, the public hardly knows about it, and it's not clear under what conditions the US would leave.]

---

I read the articles and agree with a lot of them, but what do you mean by illegally occupying? Illegal according to what, and how do you define occupy, a term that has taken on all sorts of meanings?

---

The simplest thing would be to ask if the sovereign government of a Nation has asked another power to leave its territory.

In this case the Government of Syria (that has been around since 1963) and that still controls 65% of the country and is recognized by the majority of States on earth has asked the USA to leave.

---

Posting troops in areas under the control of Syrian rebels against the Assad regime is not "occupying
anything. It is a basing right done with the concurrence of the current de facto ruling authority (rebels) in order to deter ISIS and Syrian forces from destabilizing a number of friendly countries, notably Jordan and Israel, and also frustrate Russian and Iranian efforts to support the Assad regime.

Even Al Jazeera doesn't make the "occupy" claim....
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/24/why-does-us-still-forces-syria-explainer

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, where are we that we are not wanted? Simple answer Sam

---

Well, Okinawa and Guantanamo for starters. There are probably others. That's not really the point. Large, influential nations do things. Wise leaders of large, influential nations avoid doing things on the front porch of other large, influential nations. Particularly ones with world ending nuclear aresnals. Cuba/Kruschev was that for us, Ukraine is that for Russia, and Taiwan is that for China.

---

Its amazing how many guys on here are Baylor educated and yet have no idea that we are currently illegally occupying parts of Syria.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-americas-illegal-occupation-syria-now

[Washingtonians pretend to be shocked by what President Trump does, but it's Americans who should be shocked by what Washington doessuch as illegally intervening in Syria's civil war and occupying a third of that country. It's time for Donald Trump to do the right thing and bring our troops home.]

https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/6/15/23669622/syria-900-us-troops-forever-war-isis-assad

[Call it a forever war.

US troops are fighting ISIS in Syria. But Congress hasn't approved it, the public hardly knows about it, and it's not clear under what conditions the US would leave.]

---

I read the articles and agree with a lot of them, but what do you mean by illegally occupying? Illegal according to what, and how do you define occupy, a term that has taken on all sorts of meanings?

---

The simplest thing would be to ask if the sovereign government of a Nation has asked another power to leave its territory.

In this case the Government of Syria (that has been around since 1963) and that still controls 65% of the country and is recognized by the majority of States on earth has asked the USA to leave.

---

Posting troops in areas under the control of Syrian rebels against the Assad regime is not "occupying
anything. It is a basing right done with the concurrence of the current de facto ruling authority (rebels) in order to deter ISIS and Syrian forces from destabilizing a number of friendly countries, notably Jordan and Israel, and also frustrate Russian and Iranian efforts to support the Assad regime.

Even Al Jazeera doesn't make the "occupy" claim....
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/24/why-does-us-still-forces-syria-explainer

---

Not sure if being invited in by rebel groups would meet the standards of international law.

The real Syrian government in Damascus feels about that situation the way DC would have felt if English troops landed during our civil war and started building bases

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, where are we that we are not wanted? Simple answer Sam

---

Well, Okinawa and Guantanamo for starters. There are probably others. That's not really the point. Large, influential nations do things. Wise leaders of large, influential nations avoid doing things on the front porch of other large, influential nations. Particularly ones with world ending nuclear aresnals. Cuba/Kruschev was that for us, Ukraine is that for Russia, and Taiwan is that for China.

---

Its amazing how many guys on here are Baylor educated and yet have no idea that we are currently illegally occupying parts of Syria.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-americas-illegal-occupation-syria-now

[Washingtonians pretend to be shocked by what President Trump does, but it's Americans who should be shocked by what Washington doessuch as illegally intervening in Syria's civil war and occupying a third of that country. It's time for Donald Trump to do the right thing and bring our troops home.]

https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/6/15/23669622/syria-900-us-troops-forever-war-isis-assad

[Call it a forever war.

US troops are fighting ISIS in Syria. But Congress hasn't approved it, the public hardly knows about it, and it's not clear under what conditions the US would leave.]

---

I read the articles and agree with a lot of them, but what do you mean by illegally occupying? Illegal according to what, and how do you define occupy, a term that has taken on all sorts of meanings?

---

The simplest thing would be to ask if the sovereign government of a Nation has asked another power to leave its territory.

In this case the Government of Syria (that has been around since 1963) and that still controls 65% of the country and is recognized by the majority of States on earth has asked the USA to leave.

---

Posting troops in areas under the control of Syrian rebels against the Assad regime is not "occupying
anything. It is a basing right done with the concurrence of the current de facto ruling authority (rebels) in order to deter ISIS and Syrian forces from destabilizing a number of friendly countries, notably Jordan and Israel, and also frustrate Russian and Iranian efforts to support the Assad regime.

Even Al Jazeera doesn't make the "occupy" claim....
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/24/why-does-us-still-forces-syria-explainer

---

Not sure if being invited in by rebel groups would meet the standards of international law.

The real Syrian government in Damascus feels about that situation the way DC would have felt if English troops landed during our civil war and started building bases

---

Your first sentence about says it all regarding this thread.