Covered this about 50 pages ago, but for actual KIAs they surpassed us a long time ago, as 9k of our Vietnam deaths were actually from accidents. And we were actually involved in Vietnam for 20 years, although the most intense involvement was 10 years. So it going even worse for Russia!
Not convinced of that. If Russia uses nukes on Ukraine.... NATO/US responding militarily isn't a given. Game changing event and escalation worries would be ramped up.
Right there is why I wouldn't take in any Russians trying to flee now. U were with Putin every step of the way. And just wanted to eat the steak and ignore how it was made.
No need to worry, quite a few of the geopolitical geniuses on here told me months ago there wasn't any way Russia would use a nuke or that they likely have any functional ones anyway.
Someone will have to respond as US has already promised a catastrophic event if Russia uses nukes.
Think "somebody near putin" might be at the signing ceremony tomorrow to bring the Ukranian territories into russia?
What do you mean? They all want to be Russian. 98% of the people voted to join Russia in the recent referendum.
I don't think we would nuke Russia in response but I think we would lead the NATO charge using our air power to wipe out Russian forces in Ukraine.
Here's my thinking...
I like it, but is that snow on the ground? Not saying there aren’t spots of Russia where there might be snow on the ground, but it seems weird.
Is it not a serious question as to why the Russians would bomb something they could just turn off?
The reasons I have seen, are to create plausible deniability, to intimidate-threatening other pipelines, and maybe save a monetary penalty by avoiding just shutting off the supply. FWIW
You don't raise invalid points. But, what then? Say Russia nukes warsaw, and invades poland. Do we risk armageddon for Poland? Then Russia nukes Berlin and invades Germany. Do we risk armageddon for Germany?
No they have been very clear that is estimated dead.
Per Ukraine, those are just kills. For reference, this older article with a similar graphic says the troop losses are kills:
I think there has to be a united worldwide response of complete and utter economic ostracism if they do that if the world wants to avoid escalation. Basically no Russians are allowed in any country. No imports to them. No exports purchased from them. Not until Putin is deposed and reparation's negotiated. You can't let a bully get away with using nukes. At some point there is no other choice than getting in a fight. They are the ones who escalated it.
That's the conundrum...if it wasn't for their nukes NATO/US would have wrecked the Russians militarily months ago. Probably already have a new Russian government. Like it not....their Nukes give them more freedom of action than a non nuclear state would have.
The difference in this scenario is the line is clearly drawn...the Russians know that and they've scrupulously stayed away from any Article 5 violations cuz they don't want NATO jumping in militarily.
Article 5....Russians clearly know that is a unequivocal red line. That's why they've avoided any Article 5 violations.
I think the WH is directly and intentionally understating military support to Ukraine.
My concern with the likes of Estonia aren't for 2022 or 2023. It is 2030, when Russia has licked its wounds and rearmed, and decides it wants to get the entire band back together from the USSR.
Unfortunately, yes.
Oh, I think NATO would respond militarily. Almost certainly would be conventional though. Could hit Black Sea fleet or selected targets inside Ukraine with cruise missiles.
