Russia: 'we'll kill all of you' threat to UK and NATO

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

With extended bases and support in Europe, Us was able to take out Iraq!

Of course. Back then you had allies ;) Russia is effectively landlocked and its allies are mostly press ganged.

... even then many held back and didn't go into Iraq. Many of those who (absolutely rightly) held back on Iraq went into Afghanistan. Their sacrifices for the US to be mocked and dissed later by your current disgusting and vile TACO Coward in Chief.

Speaking as a former soldier, I'd have gone into Afghanistan. However I would have refused to soldier for Iraq whatever it had cost me. I was utterly dismayed to see even people like Mike Jackson acquiesce after the 'second attorney general's opinion' in the UK. I really did expect more from him. Oh well. We're only human after all.

Some Russians seem to forget the European nations also have some weaponry to defend themselves AND.. France and the UK have also a nuclear deterrent. Time to make it cover all Europe.

I have ZERO.NOTHING trust anymore in the USA of Trump, or even worse Vance. Stop wasting Euro's to buy US weapons, as.. when really needed, Putin will order Trump to switch of all these. No F35 will ever leave its platform then.

So, buy Rafales and Grippens, get Euro spy and communication satellites in space, make alternatives to the Patriot and Tomahawk till Javelin, and stop with any US stuff.

Keep our Euro's in Euro-country, better for you and your (great-grand)children, switch away from US credit card companies, US TV and other entertainment, US soft- and hardware, US data centres, as in time of emergency, they all will be switched off by Trump and Co.

The grifters best and fellow dictator Putin cannot even take over Ukraine, so he would have as much show of taking over europe as Trump would have in telling the truth about any subject whatsoever.

4 minutes ago, BusyB said:

Of course. Back then you had allies ;) Russia is effectively landlocked and its allies are mostly press ganged.

... even then many held back and didn't go into Iraq. Many of those who (absolutely rightly) held back on Iraq went into Afghanistan. Their sacrifices for the US to be mocked and dissed later by your current disgusting and vile TACO Coward in Chief.

Speaking as a former soldier, I'd have gone into Afghanistan. However I would have refused to soldier for Iraq whatever it had cost me. I was utterly dismayed to see even people like Mike Jackson acquiesce after the 'second attorney general's opinion' in the UK. I really did expect more from him. Oh well. We're only human after all.

Yes, you make a valid point, Norway didn't go to war against Iraq officially, but did send special troops and "observer's" something they had to do, to get their hands on oil contracts in Iraq, and also sent forced to Afghanistan against peoples will. Of course not to much noise about Afghanistan, but the public opinion was clear. Same as bombing Libya on order from Obama, which officially was an Nato operation, Norway voluntary opted for. In my army time, no Norwegian soldiers could be sent abroad in war, but when the war on terror started, they changed the understanding of our constitution, not the constitution itself because it was an requirement from USA/Nato. Also against popular vote in Norway.

14 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Yes, you make a valid point, Norway didn't go to war against Iraq officially, but did send special troops and "observer's" something they had to do, to get their hands on oil contracts in Iraq, and also sent forced to Afghanistan against peoples will. Of course not to much noise about Afghanistan, but the public opinion was clear. Same as bombing Libya on order from Obama, which officially was an Nato operation, Norway voluntary opted for. In my army time, no Norwegian soldiers could be sent abroad in war, but when the war on terror started, they changed the understanding of our constitution, not the constitution itself because it was an requirement from USA/Nato. Also against popular vote in Norway.

The 'war on terror'. Jesus. When the world needed a statesman we got a puerile thug.

Imagine how different things would be today if the Florida recount had been completed. (It's interesting to know that at least three of the lawyers Bush's side deployed in that SCOTUS case have now ben given their rewards with SCOTUS seats. Including Amy but I can't be bothered to dig out the other names.)

26 minutes ago, Harry Vibhavadi said:

Some Russians seem to forget the European nations also have some weaponry to defend themselves AND.. France and the UK have also a nuclear deterrent. Time to make it cover all Europe.

I have ZERO.NOTHING trust anymore in the USA of Trump, or even worse Vance. Stop wasting Euro's to buy US weapons, as.. when really needed, Putin will order Trump to switch of all these. No F35 will ever leave its platform then.

So, buy Rafales and Grippens, get Euro spy and communication satellites in space, make alternatives to the Patriot and Tomahawk till Javelin, and stop with any US stuff.

Keep our Euro's in Euro-country, better for you and your (great-grand)children, switch away from US credit card companies, US TV and other entertainment, US soft- and hardware, US data centres, as in time of emergency, they all will be switched off by Trump and Co.

All the signs say that the EU has also understood what is happening and a major reset vis a vis the US is now underway. And the EU is larger in terms of everything except military. Combined with the rest of Europe and the EU candidate states, the US starts to look a lot smaller than it gobs off as. And that's not even counting others like Canada, Australia, and many other decent and civilized countries.

77 million said we are not your friends any more, we despise your way of life.

Most people I know say we have heard.

51 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Us was able to take out Iraq!

Without finding their weapons of mass destruction !

5 minutes ago, johng said:

Without finding their weapons of mass destruction !

That was the US version of Putin's 'NATO encroachment'.

And don't forget who supplied Iraq's chemicals for the WMD in the trench warfare that cost a million Arab/Iranian youths their lives ... Rumsfeld.

7 hours ago, impulse said:

Nor would it have been possible had Putin taken the gloves off. He doesn't want to crush Ukraine. That was never the intent.

I wonder if the "broadcaster" in the OP is their equivalent of Alex Jones?

Hang on a minute.Were they not on the road to Kiev before they were ousted due to terrible logistic problems.

7 hours ago, impulse said:

Nor would it have been possible had Putin taken the gloves off. He doesn't want to crush Ukraine. That was never the intent.

I wonder if the "broadcaster" in the OP is their equivalent of Alex Jones?

11 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

small nation like the Ukraine has done so much damage against their armies

ROTFL !

ROTFL !

Here, roll on the floor laughing while reading these stats..........https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-grinding-war-ukraine. There are many other links.

Those Russkies need to get over themselves.

They've got more than enough land.

There is zero chance that the EU wants to invade them and steal their land as they are doing to Ukraine.

That said based on mistakes of their own making they are now weak enough for China to start salvating at the thought of taking back their historical lands in the east.

Karma is a B.

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Incorrect, Ukraine doesn't attack civilian targets. Russia does, time and time again.

Yeah right. Banderites prefers to shoot ukrainian/russian language minorities and blame Russia for it. Eventually kill civilians in other countries (like Poland) and blame Russia for it again, trying to drag Poland into the conflict. When investigation revealed rocket came from Banderland they never apologised and refused cooperation with the investigation.

6 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

It was Russia that built up its military at the border with Poland, ad the Baltic nations and threatened to invade the Baltic nations.

This shows how massive is the psy op run by media around the world and how prone are average people for brainwashing and propaganda. Ask an average polish citizen who they afraid more - whether it's Russia and Putin or Ukraine with its corrupted, rotten, antihuman banderite ideology.

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Karma is a B.

True that. This is why Ukraine is facing the current situation. I believe it's a karma for all criminal acts and massive genocide they did in the past. Along with their other "historical achievements" and bad elections choices.

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet it’s what happened.

Yea imagine that a real American president responded to a nations plea for help in repelling a murdering raping looting hoard of monsters invading their neighbor…….ahh but don’t worry magga your Donald is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by abandoning the nation trying to defend against the invader as he curry’s favor with our enemies…….just wow…..

KYIV, Feb 7 (Reuters) - Ukraine has backed a call for a ceasefire in the war with Russia during the Winter Olympics after Italy and Pope Leo urged world leaders to use the Milano Cortina games to further peace.

Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha told Reuters that Ukraine supported the proposal during the February 6–22 Winter Olympics and a corresponding United Nations resolution calling for a global truce. He said it was up to Russia to clarify its position.

Pope Leo on Sunday invoked what he said was the ancient tradition of the Olympic truce and called on people in positions of power to take real steps towards de-escalation and dialogue in the name of peace.

Ukraine backs Pope's call for Olympic truce in war with Russia

11 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I'd say common sense rather than a chilling threat.

Enemy countries massing troops on your border is normally a precursor to war.

Imagine Cuba putting troops at the Mexico/USA border ......

Or Germany putting troops on the French/UK border ........

Or Russia massing troops on their border with Ukraine and on the Belarusian border with Ukraine.

Putin once publicly argued with one of these "Putin supporters" and called those who advocated war with NATO "as stupid as this table."

If you dig deep, Solovyov is defending someone's interests—someone who benefits from a war between Europe and Russia and who hopes to sit it out overseas, like in World War II. Solovyov was once a poor, unknown student, but everything changed after he was raised by a very wealthy American.

It's a non-story. NATO members have long fostered from inside and outside the Ukraine the killing of both Russian soldiers and civilians. And now some media chap gets a bit more audience by suggesting sending ballistics the other way.

They should have done us the favour of eliminating Mark Rutte.

6 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

ROTFL !

Here, roll on the floor laughing while reading these stats..........https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-grinding-war-ukraine. There are many other links.

Right, like ANY stats made up by warmongering, proukraine institution are showing the REAL situation . ROTFL again.

8 hours ago, BusyB said:

He made it quite plain from the getgo. 3 days to Kyiv and it was supposed to be over.

Citation needed.

It works like this:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told lawmakers that Kyiv could fall within 72 hours if a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine takes place, multiple congressional sources tell Fox News.

Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/gen-milley-says-kyiv-could-fall-within-72-hours-if-russia-decides-to-invade-ukraine-sources

13 hours ago, connda said:

Just to provide context:

Do you know what the US did in Iraq before invading bases on a lie of "weapons of mass destruction?"

The use took out Iraqi infrastructure including the energy infrastructure.

Is it "moral" if the US engages in that tactic but "immoral" if Russia engages in that tactic? Some here would say a hypocritical "Yes - moral for the US, immoral from Russia."
But? It's war.

Moral equivalence at work. I suspect you think the allies were as bad as the Nazis.

"Shock and Awe" had a different strategic objective. The major objective was to neutralise the Iraqi Command and Control, ahead of a blitzkrieg like operation. The collateral effect might have been suffering of ordinary Iraqis because they had no AC, but that was not the objective.

And in fact, when the American troops first rolled into Baghdad, the general reaction of the population wasn't sullen defiance, but often rapturous welcome. Depiste Saddam's propagandising at the time, most ordinary Iraqis thought, depsite the bombs, the arrival of the Americans/coalition, was generally a good thing. That treasure might have been wasted in the months later. My brother was in Basra in the first April, securing the Airport. He remembered back in those days, Iraqi kids used to come wandering into the airfield, because the fence was all broken, trying to flog sodas to the troops working on the aircraft there. He did 2 more tours, with things becoming progressively worse.

Its precisely the opposite from the Russians. What the Russians have done is switch to aerial attacks to batter the civilian population into submission, as their military are singularly incapable of succeeding against Ukrainian ground units. The timing of attacks on the grid is not some tactic ahead of a lightening Russian advance (they failed to do that at all in Feb 2022), but chosen during the coldest time of the year, to maximise civilian casualties.

I doubt the Russians would have the same kind of welcome now.

At the time, I was in defence, and was party to some of the underlying data that went into the "dossier". The data in it wasn't incorrect, but it was how it was presented. Coincidently, some years before, during the first Gulf War I knew some of the Iraqi students rounded up at Scottish Universities. They had fake credentials. They were all interested in studying botulinum toxin and mycotoxin, and the cover story was food safety. The head of the Iraqi BW program had trained at the University of East Anglia, specialising in plant toxins. UEA is also the number 1 place for botulinum research

I was also able to see footage the UK government had obtained from Iran, or Iranian journalists entering the village of Halabja shortly after the attack. The British at the time were monitoring Iraqi Air Force Ops. They had some knowledge of Iraqi drills with respect to "special munitions"; the Iraqis followed similar protocols to the Americans and British. This fact was underlined by some marines who testified to Congress with respect to Gulf War Syndrome. They were part of a NBC unit and had dismounted, MOP3, not MOP4, into a munitions area in Southern Iraq, which looked rather familiar.

In Halabja, the British knew the Iraqi airforce had attempted to bomb up some of their Migs with the "special munitions", but the weight restrictions meant they had to instead use their ex-RAF Hawker Hunters. Several bombing runs on the village were carried out, and the Brits counted them all. The Iranian news footage obtained helped identify the agent used. Firstly, the Iranians didn't drop dead, which told the investigators something about the agent used. Then the positions of the bodies showed many died very quickly. A concoction of agents, mixed munitions, were used, but the major one was VX. Sobering footage.

Prior to GW1 ("Desert Storm"), the allies had no effective biological detection system. Trained for a war in Europe, NATO trained "survive to fight". The assumption was a chemical-biological saturated battlefield, there was no point trying to detect the stuff, as its already all around you. Suit up, and <deleted> into a noddy suit for the number of weeks WW3 was expected to last for (BAOR was expected to be wiped out after 3 weeks fighting if it happened). In Europe, the natural fauna creates such a high background, its really difficult to detect an attack, so no point trying.

GW1 changed that assumption. Suddenly you were in a desert environment, with low bio background. You had a shot at detecting something. All the Americans had was a 10 year old prototype lab strapped to the back of an Isuzu truck that could drive up and down. The Brits used Army lab techs in Land Rovers to patrol the airfield in Bahrain, trying to see if they could get spikes in ATP using commercial instruments. Which had issues at low tide.....

By the time GW2 happened, the technologies were more refined. The British had a fleet of mobile labs manned by the JT CBRN Regiment. Now the systems can be seen in the Imperial War Museum, on display.

I understand the hesitation at the time. 911 happened because we took our eyes off the ball (Afghanistan) and allowed a dangerous group to fester, and launch a suprise attack that the various intelligence agencies failed to detect. The same was happening in Iraq. The sanctions regime was weakening, and Saddam was boasting that he was going to put back into product his extremely long range (and superb) South African designed artillery which he thought could hit Jerusalem (probably not). With Intel, there is never 100% certainty, just probability, and with iraq, there was fear of the unknown. I will go to my grave convinced there are WMD in Iraq, but they are buried, and the people who knew where they were buried are long dead. Prior to the invasion, the Iraqi Air Force had either fled to Iran, or it was buried. The Australians dug up carefully dismantled Foxbats, a decent aircraft. Why were they buried. I think the Iraqis thought they could go back, after after the Americans would get bored and left, dig them up, fly 'em.

4 hours ago, t0mt0m said:

Right, like ANY stats made up by warmongering, proukraine institution are showing the REAL situation . ROTFL again.

You have the internet if you need any information. There are plenty of links that explain the casualties on both sides in all wars.

8 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

Citation needed.

It works like this:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told lawmakers that Kyiv could fall within 72 hours if a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine takes place, multiple congressional sources tell Fox News.

Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/gen-milley-says-kyiv-could-fall-within-72-hours-if-russia-decides-to-invade-ukraine-sources

Why quote Milley when it was Putin with the plan?

https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/putin-thought-he-could-take-ukraine-in-three-days-leaked-emails-reveal/news-story/bf4de32af600b8b653069cdc34c174c8

Russia is such an incredibly ugly and pathetic Nation at this point and it's being led by a genocidal despot who truly seems to enjoy inflicting terror. Nothing that comes out of Russia should be treated as credible on any level.

One may ask why has Putin chosen this moment to make his move on Ukraine? As many have pointed out, Russia is an objectively weak state — “Upper Volta with nuclear weapons,” as someone once quipped — with a nominal G.D.P. smaller than that of South Korea. Outside of energy, minerals and second-rate military equipment, it produces almost nothing that outsiders want: no Russian iPhone, Lexus or “Fauda.” If it were not for the minerals, oil and natural gas, I believe Russia would be a highly irrelevant state. Sure, it had alot of culture. Had. What have it's contributions been since the middle of the 20th century?

Putin’s problem with Ukraine, starting with the Maidan uprising of 2014, is that Ukrainians want nothing to do with him. He is despised. And for good reason. If he were a Disney character, he’d be Rapunzel’s mother. But, he is not a Disney character, which makes him a pathetic, aggressive, serial killing despot dictator, who appears to be targeting women and children in his latest escapade, and further walk into the world of darkness. 

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Why quote Milley when it was Putin with the plan?

https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/putin-thought-he-could-take-ukraine-in-three-days-leaked-emails-reveal/news-story/bf4de32af600b8b653069cdc34c174c8

Hahahhahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You cited an echo chamber regurgitation of a propaganda piece from.................the Sun.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21449691/putin-ukraine-3-days-docs/

That's not how citations work.

13 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Russia is such an incredibly ugly and pathetic Nation at this point and it's being led by a genocidal despot who truly seems to enjoy inflicting terror. Nothing that comes out of Russia should be treated as credible on any level.

You misspelled Trump and USA.

1 minute ago, NoDisplayName said:

Hahahhahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You cited an echo chamber regurgitation of a propaganda piece from.................the Sun.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21449691/putin-ukraine-3-days-docs/

That's not how citations work.

The claim was, that russia planned to take hold of Kyiv in 3 days. I provided a link supporting that assertion.

You provided a link supporting the assertion that Russia would be able to reach Kyiv in 3 days. A claim not made by Russia, a claim made after fighting started.

So your link doesn't disprove the assertion at all, my link supports it. That's how citations work.

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The claim was, that russia planned to take hold of Kyiv in 3 days. I provided a link supporting that assertion.

You provided a link supporting the assertion that Russia would be able to reach Kyiv in 3 days. A claim not made by Russia, a claim made after fighting started.

So your link doesn't disprove the assertion at all, my link supports it. That's how citations work.

Your "citation" referred the reader to a tabloid citing "sources" with no facts in evidence.

Analysis / Bias

In review, The Sun is a classic trashy tabloid that features celebrity gossip, current events, and right-leaning news stories. There is significant use of sensational loaded headlines such as this: SPREADING LIES Trolls are claiming Meghan Markle’s pregnancy is ‘fake’ in outrageous conspiracy theory.

Politically, the paper has endorsed conservatives since 2010. The paper generally publishes sensationalized, misleading stories with a right-wing bias. Further, a Reuters institute survey found that 13% of respondents trust their news coverage and 64% do not, ranking them last in trust of the major UK news providers.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-sun/

Now shall I counter with an article from Pravda?

'Cause apparently that's how citations work.

1 hour ago, NoDisplayName said:

Your "citation" referred the reader to a tabloid citing "sources" with no facts in evidence.

Analysis / Bias

In review, The Sun is a classic trashy tabloid that features celebrity gossip, current events, and right-leaning news stories. There is significant use of sensational loaded headlines such as this: SPREADING LIES Trolls are claiming Meghan Markle’s pregnancy is ‘fake’ in outrageous conspiracy theory.

Politically, the paper has endorsed conservatives since 2010. The paper generally publishes sensationalized, misleading stories with a right-wing bias. Further, a Reuters institute survey found that 13% of respondents trust their news coverage and 64% do not, ranking them last in trust of the major UK news providers.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-sun/

Now shall I counter with an article from Pravda?

'Cause apparently that's how citations work.

Whatever you want to say, my link addressed the claim. Yours didn't.