Ukraine has lost....and is losing more.....

[ESay]

It's simply not true. There are different countries with different interests in NATO.
Anyway, if we are talking not about war "Russia vs Germany" but rather a war "BRICS+ vs NATO+" (AKA WWIII) the main battle will be between Russia and the USA, and, therefore, opinion of both Ukraine and Germany is pretty irrelevant

News flash - NATO is a military alliance, one of the basic principles of which is 'one being under attack means the attack against all'.

BRICS is now more a decorative union, that has nothing to do with a military alliance. Don't fool yourself - no one is going to fight you land-grabbing wars for you.

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure, that MAD conception became obsole in early sixties or seventies

Pretty sure? Isn't that you who talked about wishful thinking? No one, among the wide public, actually knows about the American nuclear deterrent system. That is because they, unlike you Russians, aren't too prone to posturing and running their mouth.

It is just a fit of nucleophobia (and any phobia is insanity). The nuclear war may be terrible, but it definitely doesn't mean literal death of all and everyone on our planet. Even in worst of sane scenarios Russia won't lose more than 20 million civilians. Highly likely, we'll lost much less

Dude, I am sure you don't have the guts to look what a conventional war is in reality. So, stop please this silly nonsense.

 

[Ringo]

I am sure you don't have the guts to look what a conventional war is in reality.

Well, of course, how would ussians know what a conventional war is..... How do you know it, asshole, from TV?

 

[ESay]

Well, of course, how would ussians know what a conventional war is..... How do you know it, asshole, from TV?

Yeah, Yuri, from TV too. You want to share your combat experience? Go on.

 

[Zavulon]

News flash - NATO is a military alliance, one of the basic principles of which is 'one being under attack means the attack against all'.

They also say, that NATO is purely defensive alliance. How many defensive wars did they fought? Anyway, it's pretty irrelevant. If France or Germany attacks Russia without direct American order, it is not American responsibility, and America won't defend them, otherwise every stupid Estonia could blackmail America that they are going to attack Russia.

BRICS is now more a decorative union, that has nothing to do with a military alliance. Don't fool yourself - no one is going to fight you land-grabbing wars for you.

We don't need them to fight the wars. Their very existence as industrial centers means that American nuclear arsenal won't be used exclusively against Russia, as well as we can use trade with them for our recuperation after the nuclear exchange with the USA.

Pretty sure? Isn't that you who talked about wishful thinking? No one, among the wide public, actually knows about the American nuclear deterrent system. That is because they, unlike you Russians, aren't too prone to posturing and running their mouth.

Actually, "no one among public banned in Google".

 

[ESay]

They also say, that NATO is purely defensive alliance. How many defensive wars did they fought? Anyway, it's pretty irrelevant. If France or Germany attacks Russia without direct American order, it is not American responsibility, and America won't defend them, otherwise every stupid Estonia could blackmail America that they are going to attack Russia

First of all, I think that all talks about French troops (why you put Germany here, I have no idea) doing combat missions in Ukraine is just Macron's rhetoric. Hardly it will ever happen in reality.

But, even if that happens, then the French troops fighting in Ukraine would be fully on Paris' responsibility. What Russia will do to them there will be of no concern to NATO. But if Russia attacks France proper, then the 5th article will be invoked. That is how I understand that.

We don't need them to fight the wars. Their very existence as industrial centers means that American nuclear arsenal won't be used exclusively against Russia, as well as we can use trade with them for our recuperation after the nuclear exchange with the USA

A nuclear war between two nuclear powers would put all Earth on the brink of existence, as we know it today. Recuperation.. The only recuperation your Russia will get is the cockroaches population, because they are said to be immune from radiation. Yeah, maybe it will be improvement.

Actually, "no one among public banned in Google

And? What should I get from that?

 

[Zavulon]

First of all, I think that all talks about French troops (why you put Germany here, I have no idea) doing combat missions in Ukraine is just Macron's rhetoric. Hardly it will ever happen in reality.

But, even if that happens, then the French troops fighting in Ukraine would be fully on Paris' responsibility. What Russia will do to them there will be of no concern to NATO. But if Russia attacks France proper, then the 5th article will be invoked. That is how I understand that.

You are wrong. If Russia nuke French nuclear bases after unauthorized (by the USA) French provocation - it won't be American concern either. And, as it was written in the US nuclear posture, the USA will try to stop escalation on the minimal possible level, and definitely won't just commit suicide.

A nuclear war between two nuclear powers would put all Earth on the brink of existence, as we know it today. Recuperation.. The only recuperation your Russia will get is the cockroaches population, because they are said to be immune from radiation. Yeah, maybe it will be improvement.

Really? Ever been to Las-Vegas? There is a nice place nearby, where almost one thousand of nukes have been bursted. The town is still alive. And there will be less than one thousand of nukes survived on American submarines after our first counter-force attack.

And? What should I get from that?

First of all, you should get, that MAD was more or less actual American conception only in late sixties, and it was changed by SUFF conception in early seventies.
But even then it wasn't about "total annihilation of the humanity", but merely about "intolerable damage".
To be practical MAD should have some provisos:
1) both sides have survivable nuclear forces.
2) both sides should not have active or passive defense of their populations.
3) both sides shouldn't push each other too hard and endanger their vital interests.

Right now, survivability of American nuclear forces is not very high. Russia has good system of ABD and EMERCOM (passive defense). NATO countries talk about pushing Russia too hard.

 

[ESay]

You are wrong. If Russia nuke French nuclear bases after unauthorized (by the USA) French provocation - it won't be American concern either. And, as it was written in the US nuclear posture, the USA will try to stop escalation on the minimal possible level, and definitely won't just commit suicide

The US and France are obliged by an agreement to mutual defence. The US will try 'to stop escalation' in the best possible way for them.

Really? Ever been to Las-Vegas? There is a nice place nearby, where almost one thousand of nukes have been bursted. The town is still alive. And there will be less than one thousand of nukes survived on American submarines after our first counter-force attack

I haven't. Have you? And did you see these nukes?

Right now, survivability of American nuclear forces is not very high. Russia has good system of ABD and EMERCOM (passive defense). NATO countries talk about pushing Russia too hard

Wishful thinking, eh? As I said above, the Americans aren't too prone to posturing and running their mouth. Unlike you Russians.

 

[Zavulon]

The US and France are obliged by an agreement to mutual defence. The US will try 'to stop escalation' in the best possible way for them.

And if the best possible way for both France and the USA is withdrawing French forces from Ukraine (and Corsica as well) - any reasonable American president will force France to do it.

I haven't. Have you? And did you see these nukes?

I trust people who saw them, who took many pictures and write articles in Wikipedia. It's not easy to hide a nuclear burst new a city like Las Vegas and even more difficult to make a fake nuclear burst.

Nevada Test Site - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wishful thinking, eh? As I said above, the Americans aren't too prone to posturing and running their mouth. Unlike you Russians.

You said? Does it mean that you are banned in Google? Ok, read and enjoy. It's open.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1183514.pdf

 

[ESay]

And if the best possible way for both France and the USA is withdrawing French forces from Ukraine (and Corsica as well) - any reasonable American president will force France to do it

Corsica?? Dude, don't try to be more ridiculous than you already are.

I trust people who saw them, who took many pictures and write articles in Wikipedia. It's not easy to hide a nuclear burst new a city like Las Vegas and even more difficult to make a fake nuclear burst

I see. So, you haven't, either. And know nothing about the site.

You said? Does it mean that you are banned in Google? Ok, read and enjoy. It's open

And what should I get from this link?

For example this? Defence priorities - deterring strategic attacks against the United States, Allies, and partners. (among others)

Remind me, wasn't it you who argued that the US wouldn't respond on Russian nuclear attack against France or Germany?

What else do you want to 'prove'?

 

[Zavulon]

Corsica?? Dude, don't try to be more ridiculous than you already are.

If they force us to use nukes - they'll be forces to pay for it. Right now they can f#ck off almost scot-free (just losing their zone of influence in Africa). After the very first nukes are fallen - they will give Corsica. After more nukes dropped - there will be war until unconditional surrender of the French leftovers.
The same thing is right for America. If you want to take Crimea and Novorussia, your more or less equal bet in the nuclear gambling is Alaska and California. If you want to take Russian lands - you should understand that you are going to lose yours.

I see. So, you haven't, either. And know nothing about the site.

I believe that information in Wikipedia about NTS and Vegas is more or less correct.
------------

Nevada Test Site - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Nevada National Security Sites (N2S2[1] or NNSS), popularized as the Nevada Test Site (NTS) until 2010,[2] is a reservation of the United States Department of Energy located in the southeastern portion of Nye County, Nevada, about 65 mi (105 km) northwest of the city of Las Vegas.

Formerly known as the Nevada Proving Grounds of the United States Army, the site was acquired in 1951 to be the testing venue for the American nuclear devices. The first atmospheric test was conducted at the site's Frenchman Flat area by the United States Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC) on January 27, 1951. About 928 nuclear tests were conducted here through in 1994, when the United States stopped its underground nuclear testing.

Las Vegas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Las Vegas,[6] often known simply as Vegas, is the most populous city in the U.S. state of Nevada and the county seat of Clark County. The Las Vegas Valley metropolitan area is the largest within the greater Mojave Desert, and second-largest in the Southwestern United States.[7][8] Las Vegas is an internationally renowned major resort city, known primarily for its gambling, shopping, fine dining, entertainment, and nightlife, with most venues centered on downtown Las Vegas and more to the Las Vegas Strip just outside city limits. The Las Vegas Valley as a whole serves as the leading financial, commercial, and cultural center for Nevada. According to the United States Census Bureau, the city had 641,903 residents in 2020,[9] with a metropolitan population of 2,227,053,[10] making it the 25th-most populous city in the United States.

---------

And what should I get from this link?

For example this? Defence priorities - deterring strategic attacks against the United States, Allies, and partners. (among others)

Remind me, wasn't it you who argued that the US wouldn't respond on Russian nuclear attack against France or Germany?

What else do you want to 'prove'?

So, you didn't read it.
Ok. Let's play a comic scene (just to add some contrast to the grave situation). I don't believe in crazy dictators, but why not.
--------
The fried Chicken.
Macron: I wanna send our forces in Ukraine!
Zelenskiy: Don't do it, I don't want your soldiers, money (or weapon to be sold) would be quite enough.
Macron: Shut up, you just want to steal our money. We gonna fight and we gonna win!!!
Zelenskiy: Ok then. Help yourself.
Biden: Don't do it. We don't need to fight them directly. It's reckless and stupid! Just join the sanctions and wait until collapse of their economy!
Macron: Shut up, you coward! I got tired of all this BS! Sanctions, economy! Let's crush their armies and put them on their heels!!!
Biden: Ok then. But you are on your own since now.
Putin: Don't do it. We don't want to genocide French people.
Macron: Shut up, you mazaf#ka! You are bluffing. You won't launch your missiles!
Putin: Ok then. If you wanna commit suicide we can't stop you.

French forces deployed in Odessa. Russia bomb them, kill most of them.
Macron: my fellow frog-eaters, we should fight those Ruskies and send more forces in Ukraine, now in greater number and better equipped.
Putin: ask Parliament's permission to use force against France. The Parliament allow him. Putin declares large drills of Army and MChS (including partial evacuation of the cities) and calls his people to arms. Russian ambassador in France declares ultimatum to the French government: "One more soldier in Ukraine and we are officially in war."
Biden: My fellow Americans, you have nothing to worry about. France is on their own and we are not going to fight a war with Russia whatever happens. Our Defcon is still on the level 3.
Macron: Ha-ha! Nobody can stop me!!! I'm reincarnated Napoleon, but this time I shall prevail!!!! Send more soldiers to Ukraine! Ignore their nuclear threats!

Putin. Press small red button. French nuclear bases destroyed. Ten thousand of French soldiers and sailors are dead. No civilian casualties.Their last ballistic missiles sous-marin is killed by a Russian attacking submarine.
Macron: kill himself. Mary Le Pen is a new French leader, agreed on the generous Russian peace terms. She hate to lose Corsica but it's much better than lose the whole France.

And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, we are going to the final Biden's choice....
His options are simple:
1) Do not interfere and allow Russia and France settle their peace treaty on the mutually acceptable terms.
2) Order direct and immediate out of blue attack against Russian cities. (And this, definitely means suicide for American cities either).
3) Order to raise Defcon level to 2, evacuate American cities and join negotiations with Russia, risking that the Russians will read it as a preparation for American first strike, and will preempt America, by attacking them first (as Russian cities are already evacuated, it means that American retaliation strike will kill less than 10 millions of the Russians).


What should he choose, my dear friends?

 

[braalian]

Wow, you people are really bad at making predictions….

 

[ESay]

I believe that information in Wikipedia about NTS and Vegas is more or less correct

And what this information tells you that you are trying to convince me in? That nuclear weapon isn't so dangerous? I think that your example is flawed. I don't know for sure how a nuclear testing is being done, but usually a blast is gone off underground.

If you want to assess consequences of a nuclear strike, you should view not Vegas but rather Hiroshima.

What should he choose, my dear friends

If France sends troops in Ukraine on their own and Russia strikes them, the US does nothing.

If Russia targets the French territory with conventional weapons, then the 5th article is invoked and Russia gets retaliation strikes against its military targets or infrastructure.

If Russia tries to use its nuclear weapons, then a preemptive strike is required.

 

[Zavulon]

And what this information tells you that you are trying to convince me in? That nuclear weapon isn't so dangerous?

It definitely won't destroy civilisation by fallouts. The fallouts will be pretty minor problem for all belligerents, and almost not a problem for the neutral states.

I think that your example is flawed. I don't know for sure how a nuclear testing is being done, but usually a blast is gone off underground.

1) Does all those craters looks like a result of underground tests?

Most of counter-value bursts will be in air, and thefe are no fallouts after them either.

If you want to assess consequences of a nuclear strike, you should view not Vegas but rather Hiroshima.

Are you banned in Google Earth? It's quite a nice city nowadays. May be even better than Kiev. Ukrainian government is more devastating thing that a nuclear bomb.

If France sends troops in Ukraine on their own and Russia strikes them, the US does nothing.

If they are going under disguise - may be. But if they are going under French banners - it's mean an open war between Russia and France. And the war between two nuclear states is the nuclear war.

If Russia targets the French territory with conventional weapons, then the 5th article is invoked and Russia gets retaliation strikes against its military targets or infrastructure.

If Russia tries to use its nuclear weapons, then a preemptive strike is required.

Really? Do you really believe, that Macron can order Biden (or Trump) to try to preempt Russia and attack Russian nuclear forces first? America is not ready, anyway.
Even if they try - we'll win. While the price of the victory will be significant - up to ten-twenty million Russian citizens killed, it is definitely acceptable, given the nature of our enemy and it's existential menace.

 

[ESay]

It definitely won't destroy civilisation by fallouts. The fallouts will be pretty minor problem for all belligerents, and almost not a problem for the neutral states

Of course, because it is a known fact that radiation can de directed or forbidden from crossing borders.

1) Does all those craters looks like a result of underground tests

I don't know. They may well be out of a tactical nuke weapons testing.

Are you banned in Google Earth? It's quite a nice city nowadays. May be even better than Kiev. Ukrainian government is more devastating thing that a nuclear bomb

Stop being silly. Present-day's photos have little meaning for assessment of a nuclear strike on a city almost 80 years ago.

If they are going under disguise - may be. But if they are going under French banners - it's mean an open war between Russia and France. And the war between two nuclear states is the nuclear war

They may well be operating under disguise. Ihtamnet.

Really? Do you really believe, that Macron can order Biden (or Trump) to try to preempt Russia and attack Russian nuclear forces first? America is not ready, anyway.
Even if they try - we'll win. While the price of the victory will be significant - up to ten-twenty million Russian citizens killed, it is definitely acceptable, given the nature of our enemy and it's existential menace

Macron can order no one beyond France. It is all about American military doctrine.

Of course you will win, don't worry. Putin says so.

 

[Ringo]

People still haven't figured out that the United States planned, provoked and prolonging this war in Ukraine yet

 

[Zavulon]

Of course, because it is a known fact that radiation can de directed or forbidden from crossing borders.

Oh, don't be that radiophobic. It's disgusting. Do you really consider Chernobyl as the most significant problem of the modern Ukraine?

I don't know. They may well be out of a tactical nuke weapons testing.

Just read something more or less scientific about it.

Stop being silly. Present-day's photos have little meaning for assessment of a nuclear strike on a city almost 80 years ago.

What about photos of conventional strikes on Tokyo-1945 or Bakhmut-2023?

They may well be operating under disguise. Ihtamnet.

Yes. They are operating under disguise. It's OK. And it works for both sides. If they work in Russian-speaking Ukraine, Russian soldiers work in French-speaking Africa. If they come to the Russian land (say, Slavyansk, DPR, Russia) Russian soldiers (under disguise, come to Corsica or Province.

Macron can order no one beyond France. It is all about American military doctrine.

American military doctrine is open. I gave you a link. Can you show us, where exactly there was printed that the Americans should meekly follow any French or German suicider?

Of course you will win, don't worry. Putin says so.

It's not only Putin, you know. I look at you, and I understand, not only understand by mind, by have a gutter feeling, that we have no right to lose.

 

[ESay]

Oh, don't be that radiophobic. It's disgusting. Do you really consider Chernobyl as the most significant problem of the modern Ukraine

I think that every sane person is. Though, I don't think that anyone should bow down to Putin's nuclear threats.

Just read something more or less scientific about it.

Thanks, but no. I am not too much interested in this theme.

What about photos of conventional strikes on Tokyo-1945 or Bakhmut-2023?

And what about them? If you are going to follow this silly line, then I will give my answer right now - Maybe Bakhmut looks more devastated, but in Hiroshima only one bomb was used, of pretty low capacity if compared to contemporary ones.

Yes. They are operating under disguise. It's OK. And it works for both sides. If they work in Russian-speaking Ukraine, Russian soldiers work in French-speaking Africa. If they come to the Russian land (say, Slavyansk, DPR, Russia) Russian soldiers (under disguise, come to Corsica or Province

Your army is of quite low quality. The only trump card it has is its nuclear arsenal. But no worries, I doubt that the French or anyone in the West wants to fight the war for Ukraine.

American military doctrine is open. I gave you a link. Can you show us, where exactly there was printed that the Americans should meekly follow any French or German suicider

The American doctrine requires the US to stand for their Allies. The American doctrine includes the notion of a preemptive nuclear strike. Am I wrong? If yes, then prove it with direct citations from there. If you know it really well as you pretend to, it shouldn't be hard for you to do.

It's not only Putin, you know. I look at you, and I understand, not only understand by mind, by have a gutter feeling, that we have no right to lose

That is great. It would be impressive to hear that from an actual soldier. From you, it is just hot air.

 

[Zavulon]

I think that every sane person is. Though, I don't think that anyone should bow down to Putin's nuclear threats.

Actually, any phobia is insanity. And, as for me, it's a bit controversial to be afraid of radiation and don't be scared by more immediate effects of a nuclear burst. And yes, if you don't want to be realistic, flexible and tolerant, you'll be dead. The survival demands adaptability.

Thanks, but no. I am not too much interested in this theme.

As you wish.

And what about them? If you are going to follow this silly line, then I will give my answer right now - Maybe Bakhmut looks more devastated, but in Hiroshima only one bomb was used, of pretty low capacity if compared to contemporary ones.

That's all about recuperation capabilities. During the previous war most of Japan cities were totally destroyed by Americans and thousands of Russian cities and towns were destroyed by the Germans (and/or Russian).

How many American nukes will survive the first Russian strike, how many of them will be able to come through Russian ABD and how much harm they'll be able to cause to well-prepared (actively and passively defended) civilian targets? Hardly more than 200 warheads and hardly more that 10 millions killed.

The American doctrine requires the US to stand for their Allies. The American doctrine includes the notion of a preemptive nuclear strike. Am I wrong? If yes, then prove it with direct citations from there. If you know it really well as you pretend to, it shouldn't be hard for you to do.

Yes, you are wrong. You didn't actually read it, do you? American doctrine is based on the idea of American leadership. If you denie American leadership and do what you was told not to do - there is no defense.

At least its how I read it.

 

[ESay]

Actually, any phobia is insanity. And, as for me, it's a bit controversial to be afraid of radiation and don't be scared by more immediate effects of a nuclear burst. And yes, if you don't want to be realistic, flexible and tolerant, you'll be dead. The survival demands adaptability

It seems you got me wrong. I am not 'scared' of radiation more than of a shock wave. The wave will have far greater destruction capabilities than radiation.

How many American nukes will survive the first Russian strike, how many of them will be able to come through Russian ABD and how much harm they'll be able to cause to well-prepared (actively and passively defended) civilian targets? Hardly more than 200 warheads and hardly more that 10 millions killed

The thing the US won't wait until they get under the first strike. A preemptive strike conception means their enemy is being attacked first.

Hardly more than 200 warheads and hardly more that 10 millions killed

A wishful thinking based on nothing.

Yes, you are wrong. You didn't actually read it, do you? American doctrine is based on the idea of American leadership. If you denie American leadership and do what you was told not to do - there is no defense

Of course, I didn't read it in full. But from that part I did, I got nothing to prove me wrong.

 

[luiza]

OOPS
There goes another Ukey village ..

Body bags for the Ukey bits and pieces please -- double normal please