Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russia Masses Military Equipment Near Ukraine Borders: A Prologue to WWIII?


Grim Reaper 6
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

That means Russia cannot ''lose'' the war, at least they won't be pushed back from the territories they are annexing.

russia already lost the war. Even if there's nuclear holocaust - actually, especially if there's nuclear holocaust, the survivors will make a religion out of hunting putler's supporters and making jackets out of their skin. 

russia is aware they've lost the war. Final kicking out is a matter of time and body count, but you are certain to be kicked out of Ukraine. 

Nuclear threats are counter-productive. Firstly, because they clearly show putin's desperation. Secondly, because no one thinks anymore that putin can be trusted. A looney who makes nuclear threats can only be neutralized. Preferably by own nation, so it doesn't look awkward. Hence the waiting for something that cannot come soon enough. (The longer he lives, the more of Russian lives will be lost. Don't you sometimes think you should at least fake mercy for Russians?) 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Well, you're not going to have a wartime economy in most European countries, first of all. Russian stocks have already fallen a non-negligible amount, in addition to energy export profits slowly decreasing.

European countries that rely heavily on Russian imports will likely find alternative ways to obtain those resources, including looking towards nuclear energy, etc, whereas Russia will almost certainly be stuck selling energy exports at extremely cheap prices, essentially putting themselves in a financial chokehold.

This is all without factoring in the sanctions that will likely be imposed on the Russian economy as its war efforts intensifies. To add insult to injury, it's generally bad for the economy when you have people trying to leave the country in droves.

And what is the cost and time scale of switching from gas and oil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

When Russia is pushed out of Kherson oblast, Zaporizhzhia oblast, Donetsk oblast, Luhansk oblast, and probably Crimea I'll remind you of this post.

Russia will defend these territories at all cost and by all means necessary. I don't think Putin is bluffing.

A single tactical nuclear bomb - if it comes to that - would force the entire Kyiv government to surrender. Unless NATO responds, there is no way Ukraine can even hope to win.

Edited by Occult1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

putler's main propagandists are complaining in russian regime TV about mogilization. 

It's a great sign of **** possibly about to hit the fan in russia, but thousands of Russians will die in the meantime. 

With propaganda help of western shills for russia, who care less about russians than even russian regime TV. Mind boggles.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Russia will defends these territories at all cost and by all means necessary. I don't think Putin is bluffing.

A single tactical nuclear bomb - if it comes to that - would force the entire Kyiv government to surrender. Unless NATO responds, there is no way Ukraine can even hope to win.

They won`t respond, we won`t sacrifice ourselves for other peoples.

They will have a huge outcry, lots of criticism, and then nothing. Then to rub salt in the wound, we will lift sanctions to rebuild our economies as they need oil and gas and cheap food.

Edited by Cookie Monster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Russia will defends these territories at all cost and by all means necessary. I don't think Putin is bluffing.

A single tactical nuclear bomb - if it comes to that - would force the entire Kyiv government to surrender. Unless NATO responds, there is no way Ukraine can even hope to win.

You also claimed that the Russian military completely destroyed the Ukranian airforce and missile defense.

You keep claiming that Ukraine cant win so Ukraine and the west/NATO need to just surrender to Russia but yet Ukraine is destroying the Russian military and systematically pushing Russia out of Ukraine.

Also a single tactical nuclear weapon wouldn't do much to change the situation on the ground, most strategic bombers, which Russia has, carry conventional payloads that are far more destructive than a single tactical nuclear weapon.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

I'm sorry you're not convinced there will be a response, which makes you apparently worried, but it doesn't matter. putler is convinced, that's what matters. (Most likely he is, nothing's ever certain, but that's one of the axioms in life.)

I'm not worried at all. I think you're worried, as you keep bring it up ("fear", "worried", etc); but I think a lot of people are. I just don't think he is necessarily convinced that there would be a response, and even if he thinks there is a response he could apply the notion of escalation to de-escalate.

I just am not of the belief that NATO will risk throwing the world into nuclear chaos over a non-NATO country. I also just don't buy into this whole notion that NATO would overtly attack Russia in the case that a tactical nuke was used in Ukraine - conventionally, or otherwise. It just would not make sense to me, especially since they have been trying to openly avoid escalation with Russia since the beginning of this war (i.e. opening a line of communication about their missile tests, avoiding sending specific munitions and equipment to Ukraine, avoiding using specific rhetoric, etc). I think I have a pretty good idea of what NATO's response would be and I don't think it would involve open attacks on Russia.

If you're ever interested give On Thermonuclear War by Herman Kahn a look. Though it was published in 1960, it does show that nuclear war and assurances of mutual destruction are not necessarily as airtight as one might think. Reality often does not reflect what we want or hope, but I suppose that goes for both sides.

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

And what is the cost and time scale of switching from gas and oil?

I have no idea, but it would be no easy task. I suspect that there would be a lot of economic hardship in the short term, whereas in the long-term everything would balance out. Russia will be suffering in both short-term and long-term.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nuclear Wessel said:

I have no idea, but it would be no easy task. I suspect that there would be a lot of economic hardship in the short term, whereas in the long-term everything would balance out. Russia will be suffering in both short-term and long-term.

It would take years to build nuclear plants, oil rigs, gas rigs, and therefore it isn`t plausible.

We treat Russia like we think we have power over them. Where we think we can force them to play ball with us. They laugh back and do what they want. And the reason? They have power over us as our economies are dependent on them for reasonably priced food, gas, and oil.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

You also claimed that the Russian military completely destroyed the Ukranian airforce and missile defense.

You keep claiming that Ukraine cant win so Ukraine and the west/NATO need to just surrender to Russia but yet Ukraine is destroying the Russian military and systematically pushing Russia out of Ukraine.

Also a single tactical nuclear weapon wouldn't do much to change the situation on the ground, most strategic bombers, which Russia has, carry conventional payloads that are far more destructive than a single tactical nuclear weapon.

The rules have changed.

An attack on Donbass, Kherson, or Zaporizhzhia will be an attack on Russian territory.

Ukraine cannot ''destroy'' the Russian military or ''push them out'' of Ukraine without heavy U.S./NATO assistance.

But Putin has made it clear, if we keep doing that, and threaten the integrity of Russian territory they will use all means necessary to defend it, including nuke.

Edited by Occult1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I'm not worried at all. I think you're worried, as you keep bring it up ("fear", "worried", etc); but I think a lot of people are. I just don't think he is necessarily convinced that there would be a response, and even if he thinks there is a response he could apply the notion of escalation to de-escalate.

I just am not of the belief that NATO will risk throwing the world into nuclear chaos over a non-NATO country. I also just don't buy into this whole notion that NATO would overtly attack Russia in the case that a tactical nuke was used in Ukraine - conventionally, or otherwise. It just would not make sense to me, especially since they have been trying to openly avoid escalation with Russia since the beginning of this war (i.e. opening a line of communication about their missile tests, avoiding sending specific munitions and equipment to Ukraine, avoiding using specific rhetoric, etc). I think I have a pretty good idea of what NATO's response would be and I don't think it would involve open attacks on Russia.

If you're ever interested give On Thermonuclear War by Herman Kahn a look. Though it was published in 1960, it does show that nuclear war and assurances of mutual destruction are not necessarily as airtight as one might think. Reality often does not reflect what we want or hope, but I suppose that goes for both sides.

Sometimes, in moments like this one, I'm half certain you're high quality russian psy-op. Then I remember russians have no high quality psy-ops :lol: 

Don't be offended now, be flattered with "high quality" part :D 

And do try not to sound like Cookie, who is convinced NATO wouldn't react for anyone except him. 

 

Also, this: 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I just am not of the belief that NATO will risk throwing the world into nuclear chaos over a non-NATO country.

You have also made the claim that Ukraine will win the war. But clearly there is no way Ukraine can retake the annexed territories without NATO entering the war on their behalf.

So that's a bit contradictory.

Edited by Occult1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Sometimes, in moments like this one, I'm half certain you're high quality russian psy-op. Then I remember russians have no high quality psy-ops :lol: 

Don't be offended now, be flattered with "high quality" part :D 

And do try not to sound like Cookie, who is convinced NATO wouldn't react for anyone except him. 

 

Also, this: 

 

LOL - in a weird way, I did find that kind of flattering.

To be fair, at the end of the day I respect the hell out of you and think you're one of the most intelligent posters in this thread.

Admittedly I do like to throw a wrench in the common narrative for lulz sometimes despite my contradicting beliefs to the points I am posting about, but I think that all sides should be looked at. Everybody will still always have their beliefs and opinions and I think that's important too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Russia will defend these territories at all cost and by all means necessary. I don't think Putin is bluffing.

A single tactical nuclear bomb - if it comes to that - would force the entire Kyiv government to surrender. Unless NATO responds, there is no way Ukraine can even hope to win.

The fact you want Russia to use a nuke on Ukraine means you're a horrible person. What's wrong with you man

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

You have also made the claim that Ukraine will win the war. But clearly there is no way Ukraine can retake the annexed territories without NATO entering the war on their behalf.

So that's a bit contradictory.

Have you been following whats been happening? Ukraine are liberating territories on a daily basis wtf? Are you and cookie on the same drugs?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

You have also made the claim that Ukraine will win the war. But clearly there is no way Ukraine can retake the annexed territories without NATO entering the war on their behalf.

So that's a bit contradictory.

NATO didn't enter when Crimea was attacked. Ukraine has openly declared that Crimea is a target for liberation.

Also, sometimes giving pause and thinking about things gives you a fresh perspective. Maybe you could try it sometime.

My actual opinion? I don't think there will be "winners" in any traditional sense. I think both countries are going to be absolutely ****ed. More than they are now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

LOL - in a weird way, I did find that kind of flattering.

To be fair, at the end of the day I respect the hell out of you and think you're one of the most intelligent posters in this thread.

Admittedly I do like to throw a wrench in the common narrative for lulz sometimes despite my contradicting beliefs to the points I am posting about, but I think that all sides should be looked at. Everybody will still always have their beliefs and opinions and I think that's important too.

Aww, now I'm flattered too ^_^ Thank you. 

And you're absolutely right, all sides should be looked at :yes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

The fact you want Russia to use a nuke on Ukraine means you're a horrible person. What's wrong with you man

Never said I wanted Russia to use nuke, don't get me wrong.

But it is a real possibility, according to what Putin and Kremlin officials are telling us.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Russia will defend these territories at all cost and by all means necessary. I don't think Putin is bluffing.

A single tactical nuclear bomb - if it comes to that - would force the entire Kyiv government to surrender. Unless NATO responds, there is no way Ukraine can even hope to win.

Why would it force a surrender?  In the deployment and formations of a modern army, what percentage of a standing army to you think a low yield nuke would neutralise?

What could a low yield nuke hit strategically that would force a surrender?  This isn’t 1940’s where we are witnessing the birth of a new weapon, in-fact tactical nuclear weapons are somewhat outdated, designed to target large formations of enemy troops and materiel.

There are 2 major points you are missing here though.  Firstly the deployment of nuclear weapons is an act of outright desperation, an acknowledgment of defeat in its own right.

Secondly the world is pretty unified in its condemnation of Russia’s aggression, if Russia uses nukes, it is globally screwed.  It’s allies will turn their backs, it will be open season on Russia.  No Nuclear retaliation would be required.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

NATO didn't enter when Crimea was attacked. Ukraine has openly declared that Crimea is a target for liberation.

Also, sometimes giving pause and thinking about things gives you a fresh perspective. Maybe you could try it sometime.

My actual opinion? I don't think there will be "winners" in any traditional sense. I think both countries are going to be absolutely ****ed. More than they are now.

(If there's no nuclear holocaust) Ukraine will be rebuilt. Not only the EU is making a point out of rebuilding Ukraine, but it's also even more important that Ukraine is resources-rich (including energy) country with industry that doesn't stop even now, in war, so the investments in Ukraine are already considered a wise choice.

While russia will stay a pariah only a lunatic would trust for a very, very long time.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't post the link because it shows a POW without censoring his face, but a russian was mobilized on 21st of September and he was captured today, on 27th September.  

He appears unharmed. Mistakenly calls russian army "soviet army". Begs forgiveness.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Never said I wanted Russia to use nuke, don't get me wrong.

But it is a real possibility, according to what Putin and Kremlin officials are telling us.

You never explicitly said it. But your language makes it clear. As you never talk about how immoral and horrific it would be for Putin to use a nuke. You just show excitement at the possibility of Ukraine losing.

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

What could a low yield nuke hit strategically that would force a surrender?

I don't think the use of a nuke would have much value in the sense of using it to target "strategic" locations, but I do think that it would be less about the damage it inflicts and more about the message it conveys. I suspect it would be more than one, if at all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ukrainians show daily that they're not the type of people who can be scared or made to surrender. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.