We’re in a very dangerous moment here
Critical shortfalls of western munitions + doubts about US commitment to NATO + increasingly desperate Putin = potential for miscalculation and disaster.
Thanks, Trump voters.
Link: https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/cia-chiefs-surprise-moscow-trip-was-to-warn-russia-not-to-attack-nato-c2d997f3
Replies to: “We’re in a very dangerous moment here”
You’re welcome, Neville. Our greatest risk is the Left undermining the US effort.
(no message)
How exactly has the left "undermined" our deterrent?
Has the left constantly threatened to leave NATO? Has the left created rifts with NATO members over preposterous bullshit (like Greenland)? Has the left alienated our European allies and caused major fault lines to form over support to Ukraine?
Or could it be maybe that you are just a mindless, knee-jerk Trump toady?
True! But if Trump were funding this war the Dems would attack him for it.
(no message)
Wake up moment for Euros in NATO.
(no message)
You’re welcome. Can we get some free weapons back from Ukraine? Would that help?
(no message)
Let me understand. Putin has failed to beat a 3rd world neighbor but he is a threat to... who?
The Russian military is more a danger to itself than anyone else.
The Russians have more men under arms now than they did in 2022
And he is desperate - and has always wanted to split NATO apart.
So do not sleep comfy just because the Russians underperformed in Ukraine. The Baltic countries do not have large armies - the Russians could roll over them in a few hours.
This is not 1945. Russian technology, logistics and command structures are antiquated.
And then there is there rampant CORRUPTION.
Every general is out for himself.
None of that will stop Putin from invading the Baltics
(no message)
He's cutting off Russia's nose to save his own face. I'm not sure his sycophants will remain loyal
Nukes are a bridge way too far... and there're not even practical on this battlefield.
It is critical to remember that while they are physically smaller than strategic nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons would still mean wide-scale death and long-term human suffering. There is no exact agreed-upon definition of what size constitutes a tactical nuclear weapon, but they typically range anywhere from 0.1 to 50 kilotons. For reference, the nuclear bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was about 15 kilotons — the effects of which continue to be felt to this day.
Russia would become a global pariah if it used these... even in China.
Link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/putin-s-back-is-against-the-wall-there-is-now-a-chance-russia-could-start-using-tactical-nuclear-weapons-in-the-ukraine-war/ar-AA2b2X3n?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=6a908c28e2b441bc84baeb1c05edb800&ei=14
Yes. But he did that exact thing in 2022.
And there really is no need to explain tactical nukes to me. I teach a class called "Weapons of Mass Destruction."
Hopefully all of this is just to try to get Trump to pressure Ukraine to make a deal. But it would not surprise me at all if Putin thinks that the critical shortages of munitions caused by the idiot war provides him a window of opportunity to try to split NATO.
If he does, then there is no predicting what would happen next.
Can we see the syllabus for Weapons of Mass Destruction?
(no message)
The US is no longer the primary supporter for Ukraine's military effort.
I don't feel that Trump has the cards to pressure for capitulation.
The US has no munitions shortfall.
Neither does NATO. More pearl clutching from the left.
There's a reason I bookmark posts.
(no message)
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=285131
Consent Management