"Russia uses de-nuked ICBM MIRVs on Ukraine" Topic

"This is an OPTIONAL WAR chosen by the US and NATO."

This WAR is chosen by muscovy. US and NATO are not in war against Ukraine, they are not aggressors.

@Stoppage

I'm sorry. I will try. What I wanted to point out was that Cuprum2's reasonings, especially regarding NATO expansion, is not very sound.

All you need to do is ask, why would certain East Bloc countries want to join NATO?

As a person from Czechia, being in NATO is a no-brainer. Especially after what happened in 1968.

"This is an OPTIONAL WAR chosen by the US and NATO."

What an amazing statement.
I guess WWII was an "optional war" chosen by the UK, France and ultimately the US. After all, the allies aggressively declared war on Germany after they trotted into Poland. We should have learned our lesson and bent over this time.

And your 'summary' of 2022 is unbelievably simplistic and speaks nothing of Russias terms.

What was actually used and how it paints Putin's Russia as rather untrustworthy when it comes to treaties….

link

Mrkillerovsy +1

Also a video that is worth watching. If true and I think it is, this could explain and change somethings. And I'm pretty sure the US & NATO knows this …

Putin, nukes, and ? …

link

Other muscoviotes trolls even say that Ukrainian capitulation was signed. But can't agree themselves, was it Biden or Johnson who ruined their glorious victory.

I dunno even know what you're talking about. From what little I've been able to find out about the actual deal it was a face-saving pull-out by Russia back to pre-invasion lines padded by non-actionable blather words. Putin wanted it over, he wanted out and wanted everyone to forget how badly he'd frucked up -- but Biden and NATO wanted a war. Why?

Then show to us the document!
Where we may see, that Putin really wanted it over and was ready to pull out to pre-invasion lines, to legal state borders.
It that is true, then Ukrainian definitely agreed with that, even without "Biden and NATO" agreement.

There are no such documents and Putin wanted it not to be over but delayed, to buy time, like he want right now also. Putin would be the first to show us such documents if these exist.

Nazi propagandists are so boring:

link

mrkillerovsky, was there genocide in Yugoslavia? Ok. Then the Russians are stopping the genocide in Ukraine. Shelling cities with artillery for eight years – isn't that genocide? There are relevant international procedures for peacekeeping missions, which NATO naturally ignores. If this is allowed by NATO, then these are the rules on which the world is now based – ignoring procedures and agreements.

It's strange that you don't understand… Preserving (and especially expanding) NATO after the end of the last Cold War is a direct path to creating a new opposing military bloc. Any military bloc is a threat to others. Especially something as aggressive as NATO.

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa, after NATO's expansion to the east, despite the promises made to Gorbachev; despite the fact that the leaders of Germany and France publicly admitted that they had concluded the Minsk agreements with Russia only to give Ukraine time to arm itself and no one was going to implement them; despite Russia's countless calls not to deploy missile defense systems in Europe that were ignored; despite the US withdrawal from arms agreements – Russia is incapable of negotiating? Ridiculous…

"despite the promises made to Gorbachev"
Why Gorbached didn't know nothing about these promises?

"despite Russia's countless calls not to deploy missile defense systems in Europe"
Russia wanted so badly to fire missiles at Europe?

"they had concluded the Minsk agreements with Russia only to give Ukraine time to arm itself"
Russia wanted to conquer and annihilate defenseless Ukraine?

Okay, not to Gorbachev personally, but to Russia:
link

Russia fears that the few Russian missiles that are able to take off after the first strike by NATO will be shot down and will not be able to retaliate for the attack. Russia has not deployed its anti-missiles on the territories of other states.

Russia wanted to resolve the crisis and demanded that the opinions of the residents of southeastern Ukraine be taken into account instead of destroying them.

There are interesting rumors about the details of this strike. The warheads of the missile used by the Russians were training. Just empty.
The Soviet Yuzhmash plant (where the USSR built space and combat missiles, and now the plant is used to produce Ukrainian missiles and store Western missiles), which was attacked, was designed to use nuclear weapons and the bulk of its workshops and warehouses are located in underground structures and are up to thirty floors deep. The missile strike destroyed the premises six floors below with a simple kinetic impact.
I do not know how accurate this is, so we are waiting for confirmed information.

Shelling cities is not genocide, Cuprum2. Its called war.
But deliberate and systematic targeting of civilians with the intent of destroying their ethnicity, religion etc. is.

But if I went with your definition of genocide, then you agree that Russia is commiting genocide in Ukraine too, right? As they showed in Bucha or are still showing in Kherson. Let's also not forget about the forciful kidnapping and russification of Ukrainian children.

Its strange that you also completely miss the point of my statement regarding the 1968. You don't even try to understand the point I'm trying to make.

mrkillerovsky, what was so special about 1968? There was the suppression of an anti-Soviet uprising by the socialist state of the USSR, which has long ceased to exist, in the non-existent country of Czechoslovakia…
Well then let's remember how Slovakia attacked the USSR together with Hitler… Do you remember?
Or maybe we should talk about the actions of the Czechoslovak Corps in Siberia during the Russian Civil War? I happen to live in the places where your punitive forces committed many crimes. How far into the past do you want to go?

Artillery shelling of cities with the aim of expelling the population from their traditional territory of residence – is this a regular war? Despite the agreements concluded to cease shelling and the OSCE mission, which was supposed to monitor the cessation of such shelling but diligently pretended not to know who was shelling? Hypocrisy again…

Russia is waging war with extremely gentle methods. Israel is demonstrating Western methods of war. And staging, like the one that was staged in Bucha, was refuted even by representatives of the Western press, although they are diligently silenced. But the war will soon end – and then the whole truth will come out)))

I happen to have an entire library of memoirs of Czechoslovak Legionaires and let me tell you that, while incidents may have happened, it wasn't nearly on a scale as your country makes it out to be. All of what you know about the Legions are but a fabrication of Bolsheviks who needed a uniting enemy after the Civil War. But that's besides the point.

I will probably just leave this convo now.

If I stay, I am afraid that I will not be very nice, Cuprum2.

Bucha is the most well documented case of Russian war crime in Ukraine. We have footage clearly showing men dressed in Russian uniform, names, codenames of superiors (Flakon, Astra, Uran), the exact unit that was in that area at that time (234th Guards Air Assault Regiment), satellite images, radio communication hearable from house cameras…Calling it a staging is either lack of knowledge, or a complete dismissal of reality.

I'm sorry.

"Russia is waging war with extremely gentle methods. Israel is demonstrating Western methods of war."

Goebbels himself never dared a more dishonest statement. Stay classy, Cuprum!

Yes, there is a lot. But there is a lot that refutes the evidence presented. I personally watched all the news that came from near Kyiv at that time, including the first Ukrainian videos from Bucha, filmed by Ukrainian soldiers. The first Ukrainian cameramen who entered the city did not report any mass murders. The bodies appeared on the streets later.

link

Let's wait a little – the war will soon end and everything will be known. I don't see any point in arguing now.

Nine pound round

link

It is times like this that show the true wisdom of George Washington as illustrated by the advice he left concerning foreign policy in his farewell address:

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence ( I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish--that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good--that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism-- this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated."

From what little I've been able to find out about the actual deal it was a face-saving pull-out by Russia back to pre-invasion lines padded by non-actionable blather words.

There is what's said to be an early draft here (that I can't read myself) that has apparently been confirmed:

"Systema obtained the draft from a Ukrainian source familiar with the negotiations, and a Russian source close to the talks confirmed its authenticity. Both spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly."

Early Peace Plan Shows Russia's Intent To Neutralize Ukraine

link

I have to agree with SBminisguy! Everything was rather well stated.

Interesting read, not what we've been hearing from the MSM of the west.

Subject: Half of Ukrainians Want Quick, Negotiated End to War


link

27% (52% from 52%) are even ready to lost the territory by negotiations. And?

reasonings, especially regarding NATO expansion, is not very sound.

I agree … NATO allowed former WP, etc. to join that coalition. A coalition born out of mutual defense. A defense from an enemy that was still dangerous.

All you need to do is ask, why would certain East Bloc countries want to join NATO?

It is clear to the West/NATO. Why these former Eastern Bloc/WP nations joined. They have experienced life under the Communist Soviet Russian boot. And they didn't like it. So, they took the opportunity as soon as they could to join NATO. To prevent the Soviets from ever doing it again. The Russians seem to not play well with others. Even the nations they occupy.

Also with a result of Putin's war of aggression with Ukraine. Two nations that were not part of NATO joined as a result. They too did not want to risk being under the Russian boot too. So Putin's excuse of fearing NATO's Eastern expansion, was something he was responsible for. When Finland and Sweden didn't want to take any chances. With Putin trying to take back lands that at one time were part of Imperial Russia decades ago. Now Russia has more NATO nations even farther East than it was before Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

What an amazing statement.
I guess WWII was an "optional war" chosen by the UK, France and ultimately the US. After all, the allies aggressively declared war on Germany after they trotted into Poland. We should have learned our lesson and bent over this time.

And your 'summary' of 2022 is unbelievably simplistic and speaks nothing of Russias terms.

I completely agree …

Russia is waging war with extremely gentle methods.

I certainly don't think that is correct. The Russians repeatedly demonstrated they don't know how to execute modern mobile combine arms maneuver warfare. They are fighting the last war or even maybe the one before that.

"Gentle" is not an accurate word, with all the war crimes committed by the Russians, plus the blatant aggressive imperialism not seen in Europe since WWII, etc. That word should not be use with anything that deals with Putin's War of Aggression on a neighboring free nation.

Israel is demonstrating Western methods of war.

Yes modern combined arms warfare. And the IDF is doing a pretty damn good job of demonstrating that. The Russia Military should take notes.

Goebbels himself never dared a more dishonest statement.

Bingo !!!!

Who is the biggest loser when Ukraina are forced by US to lose some territories?

Subject: France gives Ukraine licence to fire long-range missiles at Russia


link

Legion 4, a brilliant operation by Israel?))) A year of war, which is being waged in a limited area with absolute technical superiority over the enemy. The results? 8% of the population in Gaza has been destroyed… That's all for now…

link

Cuprum, you couldn't lie straight in bed, and neither could your handlers in the FSB. The IDF spends more effort – and uses more restrictive rules of engagement – than any other military in the world, and goes farther to avoid civilian casualties than almost any other army. It has nothing in common with the brutal barbarities of an army like yours, which is perhaps most famous for having raped its way across eastern Germany.

Ironically, your chief contribution to this site is to convince most of your readers that you represent a government that's hopelessly dishonest, leading a people whose judgment is likely crippled by fetal alcohol syndrome – and that Russia deserves whatever it gets.

Oh, I broke up your CIA activities to fool your people? You shouldn't be so nervous))) The Lancet magazine is one of the most authoritative medical publications. But apparently they are also paid for by the damned Putin))) Are you paranoid?

Right now I'm lying in a den with my pet bear, who serves in the KGB, gnawing on vodka frozen solid and singing drunken songs to the balalaika))) You figured me out)))

russian couplets while tussle)))

link

As I said- you deserve whatever you get.

Beyond any doubt)))

🤔 nope, can't see any possibilities of this going awry. (Paragraph 2)🙄

"So U.S. and European officials are discussing deterrence as a possible security guarantee for Ukraine, such as stockpiling a conventional arsenal sufficient to strike a punishing blow if Russia violates a cease-fire.
Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications."

Subject: Trump's Vow to End the War Could Leave Ukraine With Few Options – The New York Times


link

A ceasefire must first be agreed upon somehow…
Russia has no reason to stop military actions yet, especially now that Ukrainian troops are on Russian territory.
Let's see what Trump has to offer…

Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications."

It would instantly lead to nuclear war. At a minimum Ukraine would be glassed since the risk of Zelensky firing nukes at Russian cities would be too great to allow such insanity. And then does the rest of the world get to glow in the dark because Biden and his regime handlers (cough cough Obama, cough cough) are so angry and spiteful at Trump's re-election that they not only want to make it hard to secure a peace deal, but would escalate to Armageddon in the craziest temper tamper in human history?

Well, Ukraine continued to attack Russian territory with Western missiles, and the Europeans gave permission to use their missiles at any range inside Russia. I wonder how Putin will respond?
If I were him, I would strike with non-nuclear missiles (the same "Oreshnik"), at training sites for Ukrainian military personnel on the territory of countries whose missiles are attacking Russian territory. Having warned about the attack half an hour in advance, as he promised. I wonder, where are your "red lines"?)))

"Nonproliferation Treaty? What's that?"

I'd say it probably a little higher. I know it is based on those I've heard talk about it.

Subject: 51% of Americans oppose military aid for Ukraine, poll shows


link

This was not an attack with an existing missile, but a new Russian IRBM called the "Oreshnik." This missile can carry x6 150kt MARVS warheads, or x36 non-nuclear MIRVs with 200-500m CEP with a range of up to 5500km. Because the flight profile of nuclear vs non-nuclear armed missiles is identical, the West would have to rely on Russian assurances each launch that it's not a nuclear attack -- which raises the stakes and makes accidental escalation all the more likely.

This also gives Russia the ability to do targeted long-range missile strikes on US and NATO assets in retaliation.

Interesting analysis of this new threat: YouTube link

Well this war of aggression gave Putin a good chance to test out some new weapons systems.

And also we all found out what we may have already known … modern warfare is more deadly than ever before. And it burns up ammo/weapons faster than we expected. And the USA's industrial base is not prepared to support and supply a major war effort e.g. with the Chicoms.

Russia has a military alliance with North Korea. And North Korea, according to the agreement, is obliged to provide its contingent to defend Russian territory (yes, it is a defensive alliance). You can make such an agreement with Ukraine… What's stopping you? Macron has regularly threatened to send his troops. We are waiting for them… Now together with the Koreans))) It is not only the West that can play such games.