Best argument of the day; Ukraine saying that Russian depots were destroyed to hid corruption (oil stealing etc). Decent.

Without Russian nukes, NATO forces would have already conquered Moscow a month ago...

Conquer Russia in a month, I've heard this before a couple of times

Aren't you agree Putin should be ousted and that a regular democracy should be created instead ?

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Apr 1 2022 07:29am

That has nothing to do with the post you quoted. I don't give a fuck about Putin or so-called democracy.
In my view, American unipolar hegemony including itss tentacles such as the imperial NATO is the biggest danger to the world.
Until more balance in global power is achieved and the dominant powers behave better on the world stage I support anyone or anything that weakens this hegemony.
Btw, it is Europe's interest to ally with Russia, it is a shame EU is too dependent on the American military to make rational self-interest decisions.

I would say, in a scenario where Putin was no longer the leader of Russia, there is no scenario where a regular democracy would or could be created, at this time, noting there too many internal vested interests to my mind to enable this. Yes it would be great if Alexei Navalny was Russia's next leader and he had the support from a "new" government, but that is simply not plausible. instead what we are likely to see after Putin (whether in 1, 10 or 20 years time) is caretaker leaders, or strongmen in the mould of Putin, but with not as big a hard-on re: USSR as Putin has.

While America is all happy to give countries democracy just look at the middle east to see how well that goes. the whole idea of regime change is all well and good, provided it stays as an idea. Going half way around the world in the name of freedom...at a certain point one has to wonder if its all about freedom or vested interests.

going back on topic - In terms of conscription I see this as the alternative to Belarus entering the war.

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 1 2022 07:48am

I didn't say "conquer Russia", I said "conquer Moscow". Also note that the capacity for airborne operations and invasions is much higher today than it was in 1941 or 1812.

For example, the nazis had to waste weeks of crucial time and tons of equipment and fuel to conquer entrenched cities like Smolensk or Kharkiv, which caused them to arrive at Moscow and Leningrad too late and in a too depleted state to conquer these cities before the onset of winter. Nowadays, with the support of cruise missiles, helicopters and jets, such a resistance could be broken much more quickly. NATO would also have the capacity to conquer some big airfield in Western Russia and manage the logistics for its troops from there, rather than depending on trucks and trains which have to travel thousands of miles through the Eastern European wasteland to deliver supplies to the front.

Your not seriously talking about invading Russia are you ? Can we stay away from WW3 please ? Zelensky was very slow to understand why the West has not sent troops, but he understands it now (he just does not agree, which is a fair position to hold).

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 1 2022 07:51am

I am talking about how a NATO-Russia war would go down in a hypothetical "if Russia had no nukes"-scenario. In reality, an invasion of Russia is obviously not an option at all.

yes ok agree with all that. I think we already said Russia would be toast on its own vs the west if it did not have nukes.

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 1 2022 07:52am