Anonymous wrote:Putin once said in an interview “if you stretch rubber band it snaps back”.
I feel like politicians are forgetting we are stretching a nuclear power nation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FWIW at this point I think everyone understands that the U.S. is giving Ukraine literally everything except American soldiers. For some reason no one raised a fuss about weapons transfers but somehow intelligence is beyond the pale. What’s the difference?

From the piece: (it's not the fact that intelligence is being provided - it is the fact that our people are boasting about it)

Vladimir Putin surely has no illusions about how much the U.S. and NATO are arming Ukraine with material and intelligence, but when American officials start to brag in public about playing a role in killing Russian generals and sinking the Russian flagship, killing many sailors, we could be creating an opening for Putin to respond in ways that could dangerously widen this conflict — and drag the U.S. in deeper than it wants to be.

It is doubly dangerous, senior U.S. officials say, because it is increasingly obvious to them that Putin’s behavior is not as predictable as it has been in the past. And Putin is running out of options for some kind of face-saving success on the ground — or even a face-saving off ramp.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FWIW at this point I think everyone understands that the U.S. is giving Ukraine literally everything except American soldiers. For some reason no one raised a fuss about weapons transfers but somehow intelligence is beyond the pale. What’s the difference?

From the piece: (it's not the fact that intelligence is being provided - it is the fact that our people are boasting about it)

Vladimir Putin surely has no illusions about how much the U.S. and NATO are arming Ukraine with material and intelligence, but when American officials start to brag in public about playing a role in killing Russian generals and sinking the Russian flagship, killing many sailors, we could be creating an opening for Putin to respond in ways that could dangerously widen this conflict — and drag the U.S. in deeper than it wants to be.

It is doubly dangerous, senior U.S. officials say, because it is increasingly obvious to them that Putin’s behavior is not as predictable as it has been in the past. And Putin is running out of options for some kind of face-saving success on the ground — or even a face-saving off ramp.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FWIW at this point I think everyone understands that the U.S. is giving Ukraine literally everything except American soldiers. For some reason no one raised a fuss about weapons transfers but somehow intelligence is beyond the pale. What’s the difference?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FWIW at this point I think everyone understands that the U.S. is giving Ukraine literally everything except American soldiers. For some reason no one raised a fuss about weapons transfers but somehow intelligence is beyond the pale. What’s the difference?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putin once said in an interview “if you stretch rubber band it snaps back”.
I feel like politicians are forgetting we are stretching a nuclear power nation.

Let's not create a policy based on metaphors.

"The Elders tell of a young ball much like you. He bounced three meters in the air. Then he bounced 1.8 meters in the air. Then he bounced four meters in the air. Do I make myself clear?"

Rubber band metaphor was said about NATO expansion .

So if NATO expands, it will snap back?

The reaction to NATO expansion is Putin snapping back.

So the rubberband is both NATO and Putin? You do realize your interpretation makes no sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putin once said in an interview “if you stretch rubber band it snaps back”.
I feel like politicians are forgetting we are stretching a nuclear power nation.

Let's not create a policy based on metaphors.

"The Elders tell of a young ball much like you. He bounced three meters in the air. Then he bounced 1.8 meters in the air. Then he bounced four meters in the air. Do I make myself clear?"

Rubber band metaphor was said about NATO expansion .

So if NATO expands, it will snap back?

The reaction to NATO expansion is Putin snapping back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At this point, it seems as if Biden wants to get into a hot war with Russia.

Do our politicians know about Russia's military doctrine about use of nuclear weapons?
It has very low threshold.
This is more dangers than during Cuban missile crisis.

Nah. It's not. If Russia nukes then they get nuked. Mutually assured destruction.

Russia invaded Ukraine in a war of territorial expansion (and is doing horribly). Russia has committed mass crimes and atrocities on a level comparable to Milosevic and Taylor. Their goal is the complete destuction of the concept of Ukraine. If they want it to stop they can stop it.

Lets assume they use small tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine, then what will we do?

Then Russia will have declared a war of agression against the world and a medium sized nuke is used on a comparable site in Russia.

Russia has agency. You don't seem to understand what country is the protagonist in this story.

If we do what you suggested,
We won’t be here to discuss about it.

If we dont then we won't be here to discuss about it (sic)

If we do as you suggest, that would be unilateral unconditional global surrender. Once a nuke is fired in anger (petulance) it's all over anyway. If there is no response then there is no detterent. If you are really scared about this scenario then you need to be praying every night that Russia loses and working to ensure that the entire world stands together opposed to their unprovoked aggressive war of conquest and genocide.

It would be utter insanity to nuke Russia because they used a tactical nuke on Ukraine. Should the US nuke Pakistan if Pakistan nukes India? Should we nuke Israel if they nuke Iran? There is no treaty that requires us to come to the defense of Ukraine, and starting armageddon over a low yield tac nuke is ridiculous. If Russia uses nukes on Ukraine all it will do is further unite the world against Russia and make it that much harder for "neutral" countries like India/China to justify their continued business with them.

Incorrect.

We have the capability for a nuclear decapitation strike on Russia. Doing so would be an act of self-preservation, not insanity.

You don’t know about the Russian dead man’s switch

Are you referring to the nuke hidden in the attic of the Russian embassy in DC?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At this point, it seems as if Biden wants to get into a hot war with Russia.

Do our politicians know about Russia's military doctrine about use of nuclear weapons?
It has very low threshold.
This is more dangers than during Cuban missile crisis.

Nah. It's not. If Russia nukes then they get nuked. Mutually assured destruction.

Russia invaded Ukraine in a war of territorial expansion (and is doing horribly). Russia has committed mass crimes and atrocities on a level comparable to Milosevic and Taylor. Their goal is the complete destuction of the concept of Ukraine. If they want it to stop they can stop it.

Lets assume they use small tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine, then what will we do?

Then Russia will have declared a war of agression against the world and a medium sized nuke is used on a comparable site in Russia.

Russia has agency. You don't seem to understand what country is the protagonist in this story.

If we do what you suggested,
We won’t be here to discuss about it.

If we dont then we won't be here to discuss about it (sic)

If we do as you suggest, that would be unilateral unconditional global surrender. Once a nuke is fired in anger (petulance) it's all over anyway. If there is no response then there is no detterent. If you are really scared about this scenario then you need to be praying every night that Russia loses and working to ensure that the entire world stands together opposed to their unprovoked aggressive war of conquest and genocide.

It would be utter insanity to nuke Russia because they used a tactical nuke on Ukraine. Should the US nuke Pakistan if Pakistan nukes India? Should we nuke Israel if they nuke Iran? There is no treaty that requires us to come to the defense of Ukraine, and starting armageddon over a low yield tac nuke is ridiculous. If Russia uses nukes on Ukraine all it will do is further unite the world against Russia and make it that much harder for "neutral" countries like India/China to justify their continued business with them.

Incorrect.

We have the capability for a nuclear decapitation strike on Russia. Doing so would be an act of self-preservation, not insanity.

You don’t know about the Russian dead man’s switch

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At this point, it seems as if Biden wants to get into a hot war with Russia.

Do our politicians know about Russia's military doctrine about use of nuclear weapons?
It has very low threshold.
This is more dangers than during Cuban missile crisis.

Nah. It's not. If Russia nukes then they get nuked. Mutually assured destruction.

Russia invaded Ukraine in a war of territorial expansion (and is doing horribly). Russia has committed mass crimes and atrocities on a level comparable to Milosevic and Taylor. Their goal is the complete destuction of the concept of Ukraine. If they want it to stop they can stop it.

Lets assume they use small tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine, then what will we do?

Then Russia will have declared a war of agression against the world and a medium sized nuke is used on a comparable site in Russia.

Russia has agency. You don't seem to understand what country is the protagonist in this story.

If we do what you suggested,
We won’t be here to discuss about it.

If we dont then we won't be here to discuss about it (sic)

If we do as you suggest, that would be unilateral unconditional global surrender. Once a nuke is fired in anger (petulance) it's all over anyway. If there is no response then there is no detterent. If you are really scared about this scenario then you need to be praying every night that Russia loses and working to ensure that the entire world stands together opposed to their unprovoked aggressive war of conquest and genocide.

It would be utter insanity to nuke Russia because they used a tactical nuke on Ukraine. Should the US nuke Pakistan if Pakistan nukes India? Should we nuke Israel if they nuke Iran? There is no treaty that requires us to come to the defense of Ukraine, and starting armageddon over a low yield tac nuke is ridiculous. If Russia uses nukes on Ukraine all it will do is further unite the world against Russia and make it that much harder for "neutral" countries like India/China to justify their continued business with them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At this point, it seems as if Biden wants to get into a hot war with Russia.

Do our politicians know about Russia's military doctrine about use of nuclear weapons?
It has very low threshold.
This is more dangers than during Cuban missile crisis.

Nah. It's not. If Russia nukes then they get nuked. Mutually assured destruction.

Russia invaded Ukraine in a war of territorial expansion (and is doing horribly). Russia has committed mass crimes and atrocities on a level comparable to Milosevic and Taylor. Their goal is the complete destuction of the concept of Ukraine. If they want it to stop they can stop it.

Lets assume they use small tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine, then what will we do?

Then Russia will have declared a war of agression against the world and a medium sized nuke is used on a comparable site in Russia.

Russia has agency. You don't seem to understand what country is the protagonist in this story.

If we do what you suggested,
We won’t be here to discuss about it.

If we dont then we won't be here to discuss about it (sic)

If we do as you suggest, that would be unilateral unconditional global surrender. Once a nuke is fired in anger (petulance) it's all over anyway. If there is no response then there is no detterent. If you are really scared about this scenario then you need to be praying every night that Russia loses and working to ensure that the entire world stands together opposed to their unprovoked aggressive war of conquest and genocide.

It would be utter insanity to nuke Russia because they used a tactical nuke on Ukraine. Should the US nuke Pakistan if Pakistan nukes India? Should we nuke Israel if they nuke Iran? There is no treaty that requires us to come to the defense of Ukraine, and starting armageddon over a low yield tac nuke is ridiculous. If Russia uses nukes on Ukraine all it will do is further unite the world against Russia and make it that much harder for "neutral" countries like India/China to justify their continued business with them.

Incorrect.

We have the capability for a nuclear decapitation strike on Russia. Doing so would be an act of self-preservation, not insanity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At this point, it seems as if Biden wants to get into a hot war with Russia.

Do our politicians know about Russia's military doctrine about use of nuclear weapons?
It has very low threshold.
This is more dangers than during Cuban missile crisis.

Nah. It's not. If Russia nukes then they get nuked. Mutually assured destruction.

Russia invaded Ukraine in a war of territorial expansion (and is doing horribly). Russia has committed mass crimes and atrocities on a level comparable to Milosevic and Taylor. Their goal is the complete destuction of the concept of Ukraine. If they want it to stop they can stop it.

I agree.
But, why in the hell is this administration revealing publicly the help they are providing Ukraine? There is no earthly reason to disclose this information.

It confirms speculation that we are indeed in a proxy war. And, it serves no purpose in working to end this conflict.

It promotes the idea that this administration WANTS a direct conflict with Russia.

You have to stand up against people like Putin( and trump). Otherwise they will take everything.