US Drawing Up Plans To Sink the Russian Black Sea Fleet: Ukrainian Official

[beagle9]

The Ukranian official who said the US plans to sink the Russian Black sea fleet, is talking out his ass.

That ain't gonna happen.

We have capabilities, but like you say "that ain't going to happen". Hopefully we aren't that stupid yet, but with Biden and company, who knows anymore.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The Ukranian official who said the US plans to sink the Russian Black sea fleet, is talking out his ass.

That ain't gonna happen.

He was actually referring to US plans at the time to supply Harpoon anti ship missiles to Ukraine and this was spun into a false narrative about the US planning a direct attack on Russian ships.

 

[beagle9]

He was actually referring to US plans at the time to supply Harpoon anti ship missiles to Ukraine and this was spun into a false narrative about the US planning a direct attack on Russian ships.

Well maybe not direct, but one could see it as being indirect (proxy) wouldn't you say ? Sending weapon's of war into a war zone is saying what ??

The Russians are construing these things in these ways, so America has got to be careful that it is doing everything for Humanitarian reason's only or maybe helping to level the Field in some way, otherwise if the field is way off balance in order to stop a complete slaughter of innocent civilians, but meanwhile constantly calling for peace to the highest decree in hopes to calm the storm raging on both sides.

We should still not get to involved in governments settling their disputes between one another, otherwise in wars that don't involve us or involves our national security.

I mean other than our nation helping in a humanitarian way we shouldn't play or be a proxy in any war correct ??

Arming other government's is saying what ?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Well maybe not direct, but one could see it as being indirect (proxy) wouldn't you say ? Sending weapon's of war into a war zone is saying what ??

The Russians are construing these things in these ways, so America has got to be careful that it is doing everything for Humanitarian reason's only or maybe helping to level the Field in some way, otherwise if the field is way off balance in order to stop a complete slaughter of innocent civilians, but meanwhile constantly calling for peace to the highest decree in hopes to calm the storm raging on both sides.

We should still not get to involved in governments settling their disputes between one another, otherwise in wars that don't involve us or involves our national security.

I mean other than our nation helping in a humanitarian way we shouldn't play or be a proxy in any war correct ??

Arming other government's is saying what ?

Supplying weapons to one side during a war has never been considered an act of war. It wasn't considered an act of war when the US supplied weapons to Britain and Russia during WWI. It wasn't considered an act of war when the USSR supplied weapons to North Korea or Vietnam during those wars and it wasn't considered an act of war when the US supplied stingers to Afghanistan to be used against Russians in that war.

It has been consistent US policy to prevent the westward expansion of the Russian empire since WWII, and every US president has supported that policy, so supporting Ukraine in its efforts to defeat Russian aggression is the proper thing to do unless you want to return to the isolationism of the 1930's.

 

[beagle9]

Supplying weapons to one side during a war has never been considered an act of war. It wasn't considered an act of war when the US supplied weapons to Britain and Russia during WWI. It wasn't considered an act of war when the USSR supplied weapons to North Korea or Vietnam during those wars and it wasn't considered an act of war when the US supplied stingers to Afghanistan to be used against Russians in that war.

It has been consistent US policy to prevent the westward expansion of the Russian empire since WWII, and every US president has supported that policy, so supporting Ukraine in its efforts to defeat Russian aggression is the proper thing to do unless you want to return to the isolationism of the 1930's.

Hmmmm .. There is a difference in small wars verses big wars... With smaller incursions no one really gets to much aggravated if harassed by the allies of an outpost being fought over or over an outpost that is being fought about.

However if decide to fight in a battle between two nation's that probably both sides hate our guts, otherwise if it really comes right down to it, then it's always interesting to see a nation receive the open arm's of another for nothing, but then after the smoke clears we are kicked to the curb quick fast and in a hurry.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Hmmmm .. There is a difference in small wars verses big wars... With smaller incursions no one really gets to much aggravated if harassed by the allies of an outpost being fought over or over an outpost that is being fought about.

However if decide to fight in a battle between two nation's that probably both sides hate our guts, otherwise if it really comes right down to it, then it's always interesting to see a nation receive the open arm's of another for nothing, but then after the smoke clears we are kicked to the curb quick fast and in a hurry.

So you're afraid the US won't get a hug from Ukraine after the war?

 

[Delldude]

Or so you imagine, but there is no evidence to support this belief.

So then, you are a Chicom apologist
Duly noted..

 

[beagle9]

So then, you are a Chicom apologist
Duly noted..

I'm thinking the same thing.... I noted how this poster (no matter what's talked about), defends China to the max, even when knowing how racist or non-inclusive the Chinese nation is. I noted also how the poster is hostile to me as an American, and super apologetic towards these other nation's. It don't take much to bring these people to the surface when stirred enough.