Edit: re-read your post, to clarify you agree the NATO expansion justification was a false pretence?

If so most of the rest of my post is already answered.


You want me to defend Stubbs position but you can't explain your own? I've literally asked your or anyone to clarify the threat of NATO expansion for about 500 pages of this topic.

Djunior throws out something about Sevastopol naval base falling into NATOs hands. He was swatted away as Russia already controlled Crimea after 2014.
You threw out something about missiles being stationed in Ukraine being a red line. When literally Finland now (as a consequence of Russias actions) Estonia, Poland (and Kaliningrad for Russia is closer to European capitals) Are all closer than Ukraine in many instances; Ergo a totally moot point.

What are the literal threats?

I can concede and understand that Putin may have simply acted in what he thought was Russia's best interest to control a geo-strategically important piece of land/territory.
Akin to what Mearsheimer lays out in offensive realism. But where it falls short is explaining or expanding on what the actual threat is?
Does he honestly expect us to believe that Ukraine being part of NATO would somehow spell the end of Russia?
How exactly?

There is no way to further this discussion unless you can clarify that or if you agree its a false pretence.
NATO expansion is a false pretence for Russias invasion, do you agree or disagree?



A demonstration of ingenuity, not much else. Some guys in a garage with welding equipment made this possible.
Its more of a failure of Russian air defence. Whether that continues remain to be seen.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Apr 4 2024 06:04am

it is an astounding range and a brilliant demonstration of Ukraine's capabilities.

They don't give up.

yes, from a psychological / cultural standpoint Ukraine, and Zelensky, have unwavering conviction.

Dodge

there is literally no point conversing with you. you refuse to engage meaningfully, you do not defend your position and you ignore our responses when we respond to your questions. you lack the ability, or simply refuse, to look at the situation from different viewpoints. It is therefore a waste of time and effort to engage with you.

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 4 2024 06:20am

??

I said nothing about range

I said that a dormitory was hit

Do you still believe the shahed facility was destroyed?

Btw the range of Ukraine is probably supérior, more likely 1500 km, but I am confident it will increase again, meaning most of the russian installations since most of it is concentrated on the west side of the "federation"...



Imagine if you had families members who died during Holomordor then being oppressed for decades by Soviet regime.
This is not just culture or ideas, Ferdia, this is future and survival against the barbaric regime which is going back to Gulag era.
So would you prefer to help Ukraine or Russia ?

By having multiple copies of the lakenheath air base scattered across Ukraine. Maybe putin didn't want next gen steath aircraft with b61-12 nuclear gravity bombs that close to home.

One of russias biggest assets in a MAD scenario are mobile icbm launchers (most notably topol-m). F35s are literally designed to target these, meaning that Russia has to rely more on their submarines which are less effective at targeting mainland usa.

Having ukraine/Finland join nato gives a 1-up in a nuclear exchange to nato. This is not a hard concept to understand

ofc to help Ukraine. We already said that Ukraine has been suppressed for 100's of years, I dont think anyone in the thread is denying this. The fact remains that without US intervention this war would not have started.