should the Armed Forces of Ukraine continue to strike military targets on the territory of Moscow empire? 70% of Americans view Ukraine as an ally

...

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 70.0%
  • no

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Litwin

Platinum Member
Sep 3, 2017
32,966
4,914
1,015
GDL&Sweden
should the Armed Forces of Ukraine continue to strike military targets on the territory of Moscow empire?

Absolutely, here is a nice target for you, ๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿท๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฆputler would weep blood. ๐Ÿ‘

1713738139689.png

Yes. Yes.Yes. Even if the more cowardly 'allies' don't like it for economic reasons....



70% of Americans view Ukraine as an ally or friendly, 80% view Moscow ๐Ÿท ๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ empire as an enemy or unfriendly​


70% of Americans view Ukraine as an ally or friendly, 80% view Moscow ๐Ÿท ๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ empire as an enemy or unfriendly
 
should the Armed Forces of Ukraine continue to strike military targets on the territory of Moscow empire?

Absolutely, here is a nice target for you, ๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿท๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฆputler would weep blood. ๐Ÿ‘

View attachment 935723
Yes. Yes.Yes. Even if the more cowardly 'allies' don't like it for economic reasons....



70% of Americans view Ukraine as an ally or friendly, 80% view Moscow ๐Ÿท ๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ empire as an enemy or unfriendly​


70% of Americans view Ukraine as an ally or friendly, 80% view Moscow ๐Ÿท ๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ empire as an enemy or unfriendly

Yes, but only as strategically necessary to interdict resupply, logistics or bases launching attacks by airforce, drones and artillery.
 
Yes, but only as strategically necessary to interdict resupply, logistics or bases launching attacks by airforce, drones and artillery.
War is war!!!If it helps winning the war, do it. During WWII, USA and the allies pummelled relentlessly combustible and energy targets from Hitler besides military airfields, barracks etc. Soโ€ฆ nobody can point fingers at Ukraine doing it!
ps dont forget about the ecological aspect of this story:cool: ๐Ÿ‘
1713738695833.jpeg
 
Yes, but only as strategically necessary to interdict resupply, logistics or bases launching attacks by airforce, drones and artillery.
ps And new models will have 3000km range and Siberia is not out of range ! ๐Ÿ‘
 
Last edited:
Ukraine is a Bernie Madoff fund
no.
ps They are military targets. It's one of their best ways to constrain the flow of money and fuel for the ๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฆ . military and Putin. Hitting cracking towers leaves ๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฆwith excess crude for the markets and not enough fuel for war.

1689385895325.png
 
ps And new models will have 3000km range and Siberia is not out of range ! ๐Ÿ‘
Don't get me wrong, I would not disapprove of any military target, including military equipment or military aircraft factories. I am not up (at this point for inflicting casualties callously on Russian towns and non-involved citizens. I only see this happening to a degree, as they will not have that much to spare, while beating them back from Ukraine.
 
Don't get me wrong, I would not disapprove of any military target, including military equipment or military aircraft factories. I am not up (at this point for inflicting casualties callously on Russian towns and non-involved citizens. I only see this happening to a degree, as they will not have that much to spare, while beating them back from Ukraine.
Note though that the Russians are doing just that; targeting civilians. Of course the Ukes are better than that.

Greg
 
Note though that the Russians are doing just that; targeting civilians. Of course the Ukes are better than that.

Greg
I realize that, but Ukraine is not trying to conquer Russia by demoralizing the populace with direct attack and in would be a strategic mistake, that could turn world opinion, and no matter what Russia does, it is not within recognized rules of war, I was trained to uphold. Sooner or later there will be a peace. It will involve negotiations and will only be when Russia is ready to come to the table. Actions of that nature, would interfere, doing more damage than aiding an end to hostilities.
 
In what sense?
~S~
I support them as an ally, standing on the front line against a common threat of a military adventurous Russian, that would continue to work toward actual NATO treaty allies, if left unchecked. But, I look at it from a strictly military standpoint, as that was my training.
 
fair enough W6, but isn't an ally also to be taken as a partner for common goals sans conflicts ?
~S~
Not ready for that yet, as they are on the front line, now. Maybe someday, but that time is a fairly long way off, in my opinion, and things can change.
 
I support them as an ally, standing on the front line against a common threat of a military adventurous Russian, that would continue to work toward actual NATO treaty allies, if left unchecked. But, I look at it from a strictly military standpoint, as that was my training.
Militarily speaking are we pushing the envelope on MAD?
 
bloodthirstiest

Someone who's bloodthirsty is savage and murderous, or is very quick to resort to violence. A bloodthirsty general might launch one attack after another, eager to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible.
 
Not ready for that yet, as they are on the front line, now. Maybe someday, but that time is a fairly long way off, in my opinion, and things can change.
Do you know what it means to be an existential threat?

Russia has stated for decades NATO membership for Ukraine is an existential threat. That means they will do whatever it takes to stop it. Are you and your family willing to die in a nuclear exchange over fucking Ukraine? If so, youโ€™re nuts.
 

Forum List

Back
Top