Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[The SC]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575392627792510976

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575296843688411136

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575393308255338496

 

[Paul2]

Russia is kneecapped by the loss of officers.

Accounts are that RU has enormous loss of majors, which means that their fresh lieutenants have to command entire companies.

That would've been OK in the rear line, which most of Kharkiv line was, but now they go against UA shock troops, and predictably getting steamrolled.

RUAF paid a dear price for draining their rear line for fighting in the south.

Now, no matter the amount of rushed reinforcement, all these troops will have to fight under already mentally broken leadership.

That company which surrendered in its entirety in Drobysheve was also lead by a fresh from the academy lieutenant.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575440208392224769

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575337193719140354

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575455264165318657

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575450212700766211

Donbas and Kherson were NEVER Russian soil, just because they make some referendum does not make it so,

Donbas and Kherson were always part of Russian empire until 1920 when Communists created Ukrainian Soviet Republic.

Russian Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You retarded person it is fact he killed millions of innocent Russians in his term

If he killed millions of Russians then why did Russia population boom under Stalin? Your math don't add up.

Russian Empire census - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575428523413602305

 

[Hack-Hook]

View attachment 883453

No, killing scientists working on nuclear weapons programs inside Iran are not valid reasons to leave the NPT, since Iran has acknowledged that access to nuclear weapons is not a strategic interest by signing the NPT.

first its well enough reason and second according to all of USA intelligence agencies combined there was no nuclear bomb program in Iran at least since 2003 and some of the ones that were assassinated were in high school at the time . so try harder,

and that page from wiki go show it to Obama the imbecile imbecile that said it will use first strike against Iran
in 2010 in his Nuclear Posture Review, and then ordered one month later to its delegate in Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review if iran talked about Nuke Free Middle east its delegate hat to walkout and the 3 usual guilty , USA, England and France walked out as soon as Iran talked about the necessity of Nuclear disarmament and specially Nuke Free Middle east .


so sorry but you guys already gave us the reason to leave NPT as soon as we deemed it necessary

 

[jhungary]

No, rather it's a one trick pony. After the first strike, anybody will do go for any cost to destroy enemy nuke stockpiles before the chaos settles.

Nuclear countries will surely retaliate with everything they still can to catch remaining portion of enemy nuke stockpiles before it's deployed.

Units in the field will be impacted the least, since it's both hard, and inequitable to expend a warhead on every trench line few kms apart.

After that, depending on how much of advanced weaponry will remain, the war will revert to anything in between WW2 to 1870

It depends.

If, I am saying a big IF. A nuclear war broke out, I am very definitely believing it would be US who do the first strike. US will most likely launch a strike when they have intel the enemy are increasing their readiness of their missile.

And then there are something called "Full Count" What would happen was that US will launch A wave of Air Brust and Ground Burst along with EMP into their target atmosphere, that was to take out all the possible fixed launch site. A Nuclear Strike would almost always accompanied with a full conventional strike. It is used to degrade the enemy capability to make war between and after the Nuclear Strike.

Then what it would is to hunt down the mobile nuke, namely the airdroppable or sub-launched. Which mean to limit the damage the enemy Nuclear Strike on US soil. Those are smaller more mobile platform, which would limit their damage to a certain area.

After that, it will be a full on invasion into the enemy state. and take control of any remaining stockpile.

Not saying it will work, or how much it will work, but this is the US nuclear doctrine since 1950.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575432164816068615

 

[Hack-Hook]

I don't think US threaten anyone they will use nuke on them, MacArthur tried it once, and got replaced like a jiffy.

but obama used the threat against iran in 2010

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575389299696074752

11 hit to destroy one tank , what was used ?

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575464354354438144

 

[Wood]

US support to Ukraine is by-Partisan. And only a few of those issue are bi-partisan, it will take 42 Tucker Carlson in US senate to overturn this policy in the US senate.

I don't want to talk about American domestic politics in this thread, but cannot resist the temptation to point out that the conservative party in US is little more than a personality cult these days. This means that the conservative party position is subject to the whims of the cult leader, who in turn learns about right and wrong from the all knowing TC. I understand that the senate members on the conservative side can still technically make up their own mind (like the late great stalwart from Arizona did against repeal of the healthcare bill). But such men are too few and far in between. For many however, getting an endorsement from dear leader is often more important.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

DJI M30 recon drone

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575488314844794880

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

The only desperation I see is to take the world into a Nuke war for reasons that are still baffling. Why should the world care about Ukraine being invaded by Russia or China or even India? Fueling the fire is not a good idea as the flames could spread and burn down quite a few countries. It's going from one miscalculation to the next and either way Europe and the EU is under threat by agreement or consequence..

Most people agree that Russia should stop fuelling the fire.
You question makes as much sense as asking why you care about an arson in the neighbourhood.
A large part of the world is simply not going to accept Russias behaviour.

 

[F-22Raptor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575411859456507904

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

but obama used the threat against iran in 2010

Yet another lie. He explicitly said that countries that did not violate the NTP would not be subject to first strikes.
You still owe the thread sources on Olmert and Bush.

 

[Wood]