Russia Continues Advance Toward The Dnieper

Yes. Neutrality is a spectrum, isn't it? But, with becoming NATO member, Sweden increased risk of being nuked in WW3 from, say, 10% to, say, 99%.

I doubt they'd bother nuking Sweden. Sweden is barely a threat, it's got a small population.
 
And the same for the US to eliminate Russia and China's alliance.

Nothing new there.
No. Actually, the USA can sacrifice NATO, buy some fifty years of peace and use them to solve their economic problems, fond new allies and become even stronger than now. Or the USA can continue escalation in the vain attempt to keep control over Europe and fight a big war, trying to eliminate simultaneously Russia and China and then, what is even more important, try to re-establish control over Europe.
 
China can't defeat the US.
China alone can't defeat anybody (even Korea alone). Chinamen are not fighters, its not a part of their culture. Their whole history is the history of military defeats and economic/political/cultural/diplomatic victories. But, allied with someone else they can achieve pretty good results.

The US doesn't want to get into a fight with China because it will be long and costly, and the outcome is unsure.

But, if China came in Mexico, Texas and California it might become the lesser evil.
 
No. Actually, the USA can sacrifice NATO, buy some fifty years of peace and use them to solve their economic problems, fond new allies and become even stronger than now. Or the USA can continue escalation in the vain attempt to keep control over Europe and fight a big war, trying to eliminate simultaneously Russia and China and then, what is even more important, try to re-establish control over Europe.

The US can't function without NATO, when has the US gone to war on its own in the last 100 years?

It hasn't.

Even Vietnam had other nations participating, though not that much.

In the last 50 years it's always been coalitions.

Trump thinks he can do without NATO because Trump is an ignoramus who only cares about money.
 
I doubt they'd bother nuking Sweden. Sweden is barely a threat, it's got a small population.
Sweden itself yes, doesn't worth a nuke. But as a NATO member, it's infrastructure is a threat to our northern bases. Hence, the most important Sweden, Finish and Norwegian elements of transport infrastructure (which are located mostly in cities) will be nuked in the very first hours of a regional or a large-scale war, just to prevent NATO's attack. Of course, Russia is not going to deliberately genocide Swedish population, but it has pretty elusive chances to survive (especially if Russia won't have enough of land forces to occupy Sweden and save Sweden leftovers).
 
The US can't function without NATO, when has the US gone to war on its own in the last 100 years?
Of course, you can. Most of you history you sucessfully survived without NATO.

It hasn't.

Even Vietnam had other nations participating, though not that much.
1) Do you really want to fight another Vietnam?
2) Did they help you to win Vietnam war?
3) Are they actually help you to solve your real problems?

In the last 50 years it's always been coalitions.
Who knows, may be, without NATO you'll be able to build another, more useful coalition.

Trump thinks he can do without NATO because Trump is an ignoramus who only cares about money.
Money talks, BS walks. NATO decrease not only your economic capabilities, but also safety of your own people. One hardly can call it "healthy relationships".
 
China alone can't defeat anybody (even Korea alone). Chinamen are not fighters, its not a part of their culture. Their whole history is the history of military defeats and economic/political/cultural/diplomatic victories. But, allied with someone else they can achieve pretty good results.



But, if China came in Mexico, Texas and California it might become the lesser evil.

The thing is, China is improving its military making it more professional.

Any person can become a fighter, some wouldn't want to be, but others join the military and get trained. China is using US military techniques of how to make fighters loyal. All you need are people who can make tactics and logistics and you have an army. You don't need so dude with super aggression any more.

And China has a long history of having such armies. They had an empire that covers a HUGE amount of land.

China has a lot of money, and drone warfare is becoming a huge part of that, they have hackers, another essential part of modern warfare, and they've got a huge military budget. Send a million troops at 20,000 well trained, hardened troops, and the million will win.
 
Sweden itself yes, doesn't worth a nuke. But as a NATO member, it's infrastructure is a threat to our northern bases. Hence, the most important Sweden, Finish and Norwegian elements of transport infrastructure (which are located mostly in cities) will be nuked in the very first hours of a regional or a large-scale war, just to prevent NATO's attack. Of course, Russia is not going to deliberately genocide Swedish population, but it has pretty elusive chances to survive (especially if Russia won't have enough of land forces to occupy Sweden and save Sweden leftovers).

It is, but would you bother nuking it? In the event of a war in which nukes are being used, they'd go for the political centers, like DC, New York, LA, San Francisco, London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin etc. Sure, if you wanted total annihilation, Sweden would probably get all the problems of a nuclear war regardless of whether it's in NATO or not.

But nukes have never been used by one nuke power against another nuke power for a reason. Mutually Assured Destruction.

The US, UK, France have enough nukes to make Russia and China not bother. Russia is easy, one on Moscow and one on St Petersburg and you've taken out most of the country.
 
It is, but would you bother nuking it?
Yes, of course. They are threat to Cola peninsula, and Cola peninsula is strategically important.

In the event of a war in which nukes are being used, they'd go for the political centers, like DC, New York, LA, San Francisco, London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin etc.
No, of course. Deliberate mass-murder of personally innocent civilians is not just immoral, its stupid. First strike is counter-force.


Sure, if you wanted total annihilation, Sweden would probably get all the problems of a nuclear war regardless of whether it's in NATO or not.
Total annihilation is barely possible, with or without nukes. I don't think that even special "Doomsday" strains of gene-spliced germs can eliminate 100% of the world's population (max gestimation I heard about was some 95% of world's population).

But nukes have never been used by one nuke power against another nuke power for a reason. Mutually Assured Destruction.
There is no Mutually Assured Destruction. Its nothing but a stupid journalistic cliché.

The US, UK, France have enough nukes to make Russia and China not bother.
Of course, no.

Russia is easy, one on Moscow and one on St Petersburg and you've taken out most of the country.
If you launch one nuke on Moscow and one nuke on St Petersburg - both are intercepted and no one is harmed.
 
Of course, you can. Most of you history you sucessfully survived without NATO.


1) Do you really want to fight another Vietnam?
2) Did they help you to win Vietnam war?
3) Are they actually help you to solve your real problems?


Who knows, may be, without NATO you'll be able to build another, more useful coalition.


Money talks, BS walks. NATO decrease not only your economic capabilities, but also safety of your own people. One hardly can call it "healthy relationships".

Well, here's the situation for the US.

No Nato means no allies. No allies means it can't justify its wars, like Iraq and Afghanistan. It took other countries with it, mostly for that justification.

So it doesn't go warring. And then it doesn't manipulate other countries. Which means it doesn't get as rich.

Take the Iraq War, it was all about battering OPEC down, take out the OPEC leaders who don't like the US, and have OPEC on the US's side.

Saved the US a load of money, okay it costs a lot too, but the corporations are making loads, so they don't care.

The US wouldn't be in that position any more to dictate world affairs so much.
 
Yes, of course. They are threat to Cola peninsula, and Cola peninsula is strategically important.


No, of course. Deliberate mass-murder of personally innocent civilians is not just immoral, its stupid. First strike is counter-force.



Total annihilation is barely possible, with or without nukes. I don't think that even special "Doomsday" strains of gene-spliced germs can eliminate 100% of the world's population (max gestimation I heard about was some 95% of world's population).


There is no Mutually Assured Destruction. Its nothing but a stupid journalistic cliché.


Of course, no.


If you launch one nuke on Moscow and one nuke on St Petersburg - both are intercepted and no one is harmed.

With what system would Russia shoot down a nuke? They don't have one. So... how would they stop it?

And MAD is a thing, why do you think Russia hasn't used nukes?
 
Well, here's the situation for the US.

No Nato means no allies.

I don't think that the USA is that worthless by themselves. May be, "beauty is in the eye of beholder" and I, as a pro-American guy, is overestimating you, but, as for me, "no NATO" vise versa, means possibility of new and better alliances.

No allies means it can't justify its wars, like Iraq and Afghanistan. It took other countries with it, mostly for that justification.
Iraq was not "justificated" at all.

So it doesn't go warring. And then it doesn't manipulate other countries. Which means it doesn't get as rich.

Take the Iraq War, it was all about battering OPEC down, take out the OPEC leaders who don't like the US, and have OPEC on the US's side.
And it pushed a lot of countries to Russia's side.

Saved the US a load of money, okay it costs a lot too, but the corporations are making loads, so they don't care.

The US wouldn't be in that position any more to dictate world affairs so much.
The USA or some freaking globalists? They use Middle East as a source of oil, they use the USA as a source of manpower, but what ordinary Arabs and Americans got because of it? How many American families have a house that belongs to them (not to a landlord or a bank)? How many Americans can teach their children in the drug-free and LGBT-free schools? What you really got in exchange for you American dream and American independence?
 
Money talks, BS walks. NATO decrease not only your economic capabilities, but also safety of your own people. One hardly can call it "healthy relationships".
How much is Putin & the FSB paying you for your total bull contributions? or far more likely, are you just plain dumb and ignorant?

NATO without the USA spends almost 50% of what the USA spends onto it's own defense and efforts to maintain US global hegemony.

In figures, NATO Europe contributes US$ 470 Billion/year - whilst Russia only manages to come up with a meager average of US$ 60 billion/year throughout the past 25 years. Furthermore the NATO members are the USA's largest foreign military goods customer and the USA's largest trading partner.

Factually it is the USA, that needs NATO to co-finance it's military global hegemony aspirations. as well as to export 70% of their goods to.
Whilst NATO members in total depend to 55% onto the US market.
 
How much is Putin & the FSB paying you for your total bull contributions? or far more likely, are you just plain dumb and ignorant?
Neither is correct. I'm not "dumb and ignorant", actually, I'm studying English and I do ask questions. And I'm not paid by "Putin&FSB" at least because its above my level.
NATO without the USA spends almost 50% of what the USA spends onto it's own defense and efforts to maintain US global hegemony.
Really? What exactly what they spend and what they got for it?

In figures, NATO Europe contributes US$ 470 Billion/year - whilst Russia only manages to come up with a meager average of US$ 60 billion/year throughout the past 25 years. Furthermore the NATO members are the USA's largest foreign military goods customer and the USA's largest trading partner.

Factually it is the USA, that needs NATO to co-finance it's military global hegemony aspirations. as well as to export 70% of their goods to.
Whilst NATO members in total depend to 55% onto the US market.
Its all virtual ones and zeros in bank computers. In the terms of real involvement - they pay almost nothing.
 
Neither is correct. I'm not "dumb and ignorant", actually, I'm studying English and I do ask questions.
No - factually you do not ask questions, but simply post your nonsense statements
Really? What exactly what they spend and what they got for it?
You spying for the FSB? - otherwise feel free to check the internet for public available information as to who spends how much and for what.
The Russian Armed forces spend their defense budget onto whatever ratio/relation/prioritization/corruption - and got nothing to show for.
Your Air-force is mediocre, your navy is mediocre and so are your Land-forces.

The only thing Russia got to show for on PAPER, is it's nuclear inventory - which again is mediocre and unreliable in comparison to NATO
Its all virtual ones and zeros in bank computers. In the terms of real involvement - they pay almost nothing.
Is that what they teach you in Russian schools - or did you simply skip economic&commerce lessons?
 
So what? It's a virtual thing anyway. When salaries are raising faster than the course -people are happy. Ordinary people doesn't care what ones and zeros are in bank computers. They care about what they have in their households.
It's not a virtual thing. Whatever Russia purchases internationally costs more. If a bushel of wheat from another country cost 100 dollars three years ago, it now costs Russia TEN THOUSAND AND SIX dollars today. Even with Ukraine, the USSR couldn't feed its own population without buying wheat from the USA, now without Ukraine, Russia has to import even more food today. From a Bing search: "Russia imports about 40% of its food, which is domestically consumed1. The share of food and agricultural imports to Russia generally decreased from 2010 to 2020, but saw a slight increase in 2020 compared to the previous year, up to 12.8%3. The dependence on imports is particularly pronounced in certain food categories, including fruits and vegetables, meat, and dairy products4.". All that food costs more than a hundred times as much as it did before YOU invaded Ukraine. Ukraine was the breadbasket of the USSR, that's why Putin wants it back so badly even though much of Ukraine's industry has been destroyed in the war. HE NEEDS THE FOOD Ukraine can produce. If he wins, it will be the Holodomor all over again and tens of millions of Ukrainians will starve to feed Russia as they did in 1930 to 1932.
 
No - factually you do not ask questions, but simply post your nonsense statements

You spying for the FSB? - otherwise feel free to check the internet for public available information as to who spends how much and for what.
The Russian Armed forces spend their defense budget onto whatever ratio/relation/prioritization/corruption - and got nothing to show for.
Your Air-force is mediocre, your navy is mediocre and so are your Land-forces.

The only thing Russia got to show for on PAPER, is it's nuclear inventory - which again is mediocre and unreliable in comparison to NATO

Is that what they teach you in Russian schools - or did you simply skip economic&commerce lessons?
The Russian economy can be summed up by a statement from a Soviet worker made in a Tom Clancy book, "as long as the bosses pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work".
 
It's not a virtual thing. Whatever Russia purchases internationally costs more. If a bushel of wheat from another country cost 100 dollars three years ago, it now costs Russia TEN THOUSAND AND SIX dollars today.
Wow, wow, wow.... You see, back in 2021 the price of a dollar was 75 roubles, now it 102 roubles. But in 2020 the price of a barrel of Urals oil was $40 and now it $80. We don't print dollars. We sell oil and gas. Prices up, and we can buy more.


Even with Ukraine, the USSR couldn't feed its own population without buying wheat from the USA, now without Ukraine, Russia has to import even more food today. From a Bing search: "Russia imports about 40% of its food, which is domestically consumed1. The share of food and agricultural imports to Russia generally decreased from 2010 to 2020, but saw a slight increase in 2020 compared to the previous year, up to 12.8%3. The dependence on imports is particularly pronounced in certain food categories, including fruits and vegetables, meat, and dairy products4.". All that food costs more than a hundred times as much as it did before YOU invaded Ukraine. Ukraine was the breadbasket of the USSR, that's why Putin wants it back so badly even though much of Ukraine's industry has been destroyed in the war. HE NEEDS THE FOOD Ukraine can produce. If he wins, it will be the Holodomor all over again and tens of millions of Ukrainians will starve to feed Russia as they did in 1930 to 1932.
Russia is one of the largest exporters of wheat and other food. And, when we have obstacles with selling wheat - we just feed it to pigs, and, say, the prices of pork (even in roubles) are lower than they were in 2021.
Everything else in your text is also total and utter BS.
 
Wow, wow, wow.... You see, back in 2021 the price of a dollar was 75 roubles, now it 102 roubles. But in 2020 the price of a barrel of Urals oil was $40 and now it $80. We don't print dollars. We sell oil and gas. Prices up, and we can buy more.



Russia is one of the largest exporters of wheat and other food. And, when we have obstacles with selling wheat - we just feed it to pigs, and, say, the prices of pork (even in roubles) are lower than they were in 2021.
Everything else in your text is also total and utter BS.
It's from a valid, independent source unlike your babble, unfounded assertations or propaganda,
 

Forum List

Back
Top