kind of obvious, but whatever.

 

18 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

kind of obvious, but whatever.

 

Or.. he won’t   
 

 

one of those 2

20 minutes ago, paco said:

Or.. he won’t   
 

 

one of those 2

This is the level of ahole I aspire to be. I'm too abrasive sometimes.

55 minutes ago, paco said:

Those.... those are pretty much the two options.

I see you are primed and ready for Free Agency and the draft.

 

 

14 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

I see you are primed and ready for Free Agency and the draft.

That. 
 

or I’m on baby girl duty and entertaining myself during tummy time

 

 

one of those two

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

 

 

15 hours ago, TEW said:

The Cold War predated the USSR gaining nuclear missiles from lefty US traitors.

 

Although I need a refresher and haven't looked this up, I believe this is true (even replacing "missiles" with "bombs.") As I recall, Stalin immediately began violating the terms for postwar reconstruction by subverting self-determination in Eastern and Central Europe, essentially ignoring the terms agreed to at Yalta and Potsdam. The Soviets were supposed to have a kind of sphere of influence there, but they more or less purged the opposition and installed puppets. This led pretty directly to the initiation of the Truman Doctrine in 1947, which is widely recognized as the official start of the Cold War, but it pretty much unofficially started the moment after the NSDAPs surrendered.

11 hours ago, TEW said:

They detonated their first bomb in august of 1949, like I said.

Right. Only good commie is a dead one.

What you also said was they didn't have nuclear missiles until 15-20 years later.

Within 8 years of their first bomb, they were making nuclear missiles. You may have heard of a term; ICBMs. They were a big deal.

1 hour ago, paco said:

Those.... those are pretty much the two options.

  He won't be able to give a more nuanced prediction until after the election

 

1 hour ago, paco said:

Those.... those are pretty much the two options.

Yeah no. I’m ruling out just more of the same quagmire with shelling, bombing,  and siege like tactics continuing without a widening. By "widening” I mean into other countries or with escalated participation by NATO in a significant manner, e.g. no fly zone. 

I havent seen these things in here.

Russia struck a Ukranian base that is just 15 miles from the Polish border.  (I guess I did see this but I thought I saw that the base was 40 miles from Poland.)

Russia has asked China for military aid.

 

19 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

I havent seen these things in here.

Russia struck a Ukranian base that is just 15 miles from the Polish border.  (I guess I did see this but I thought I saw that the base was 40 miles from Poland.)

Russia has asked China for military aid.

Russia destroyed a NATO base 15 miles from Poland with precision missiles and they have much of the Ukrainian military surrounded. 

Does that sound like a military in need of help? Russia is using less than 20% of it's capability. 

12 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

Russia destroyed a NATO base 15 miles from Poland with precision missiles and they have much of the Ukrainian military surrounded. 

Does that sound like a military in need of help? Russia is using less than 20% of it's capability. 

You need to find a better source of pravda. There are no NATO bases in Ukraine. They attacked a Ukraine army base. 124 square miles of base, and you claim it is destroyed.

41 minutes ago, Kz! said:

 

How about we trade you Tulsi and switch 7th rd picks in 2026.

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

What you also said was they didn't have nuclear missiles until 15-20 years later.

Within 8 years of their first bomb, they were making nuclear missiles. You may have heard of a term; ICBMs. They were a big deal.

Counting, calendars, and the comprehension of words.

8 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

You need to find a better source of pravda. There are no NATO bases in Ukraine. They attacked a Ukraine army base. 124 square miles of base, and you claim it is destroyed.

there were reportedly a large number of international troops there. reportedly it is a training base.

But I also saw about 30 missiles were fired. 22 were intercepted. 8 hit. They got kills, but it sounds like far from total destruction of the base. 

10 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

You need to find a better source of pravda. There are no NATO bases in Ukraine. They attacked a Ukraine army base. 124 square miles of base, and you claim it is destroyed.

NATO was training Ukrainian forces at that base. Not anymore. 

Effective use of the base was destroyed. 

10 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

there were reportedly a large number of international troops there. reportedly it is a training base.

But I also saw about 30 missiles were fired. 22 were intercepted. 8 hit. They got kills, but it sounds like far from total destruction of the base. 

30 missiles. All landed. 200+ dead.

it's estimated that Russia has committed about 50% of its available soldiers to Ukraine. (Many of whom are conscripts.)

less certain is how much armor they've committed, though I might try to dig that up.

Beyond showing how committed Ukrainians are to keeping Putin's boot off their necks, this war has shown two things to be true:

1. Russia's military is far less capable than previously thought. This is likely a combination of factors, but one major one is that this is a symptom of Russia's kleptocracy: much of the funding Pudding tried funneling to modernizing the Russian army the last 20 years went into the pockets of corrupt officials up and down the line. This isn't just in maintenance of vehicles, but also shows up in the lack of training for many of these soldiers.  Unfortunately for them, Poutine has his populace mesmerized by his propaganda and strongman act, and enough control over information within Russia that he can continue to treat these young conscripts as cannon meat and try to wear down Ukraine.
2. The West's military is far superior both in training and weaponry. Since 2014 Ukraine has gotten a significant amount of training from the West, and it shows in how much better prepared they are now. I hesitate to include Turkey in "the west", despite their membership in NATO, but I would be remiss if I overlooked how much impact their Bayraktar drones have had here. The US and EU I believe have drones that are very superior, but those are significantly more expensive. The much cheaper cost of the Bayraktar drones is allowing Ukraine to inflict a tremendous amount of damage on the Puddy's invaders, while keeping Ukraine's soldiers at a safe distance. 

If Poody could turn the clock back he would absolutely think twice about this. He would not necessarily give up on Ukraine, but he would probably clean house in the FSB and military and spend another half decade trying to actually prepare his military to be successful in a way he's tried to project they can be. 

This is incredibly embarrassing for Pudin', as he expected this to be a demonstration of their military capabilities along with a projection of geopolitical force. It has been neither, and in fact on both fronts Russia looks far weaker than it did a month ago. 

1 minute ago, Abracadabra said:

30 missiles. All landed. 200+ dead.

Don't sound so ecstatic about it.

 

1 minute ago, Paul852 said:

Don't sound so ecstatic about it.

Just the facts. 

I wonder if there were NATO personnel among the dead.