Jump to content

The Dog

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    11632
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Posts posted by The Dog

  1. 22 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

    Speaking of crying, how’d you like to be the one assigned to tell Putin his Black Sea Flagship named after Russia’s capital was sunk?

    "Comrade! There has been an incident aboard the naval vessel Moskva, but our brave sailors are getting the issue under control."

    And tell him nothing else.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 1
  2. So we should all understand how big of a deterrent Finland joining NATO is to Russia. Like I pointed out above, they are only 100 miles from St Petersburg.

    This isn't just about protecting Finland - it also is a massive deterrent to Russia even CONTEMPLATING an attack on the Baltics or Poland. Because if Russia were to do that then St Petersburg would be sacked by NATO within a day. 

    This is Russia's worst nightmare from a strategic perspective. They absolutely have to place defenses along that border and drop any illusions of taking any additional territory (assuming they actually end up with anything additional after they are done getting their asses beat in Ukraine.)

    In the immediate future we're worried about what Russia might do, but is there any way Putin survives this now? He's literally put Russia in the most vulnerable position possible. 

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 4
  3. 5 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

    Concerning NATO/US Vehicles, we are not crossing into the Ukraine from what I have seen, but taking the equipment close to the border. So to attack would be an attack on a NATO nation. Anyone else see anything different? 

    Even if NATO vehicles are crossing into Ukraine they can be targeted without trigging Article 5 as they are in Ukraine.

    If they blow them up in Poland or a member state then it will. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  4. 9 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

    Can someone clue me in on why Finland first?  Is it so they're a physical barrier should Russia try something so outrageous as to try and cross Finland to get to Sweden?  

     

    Pretty much:

    https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-nato-wins-lottery-finland-membership-russia-ukraine/

    Quote

    Indeed, Sweden’s long-governing Social Democrats have historically used Finland as a convenient shield on NATO matters. They could pledge that if Finland decided to join the alliance, Sweden would, of course, give the matter the utmost consideration, safe in knowing that such a change across the border was unlikely to take place. By referring to the Finns, they could avoid an issue that would cause internal division in the party and aggravate Russia.  

    Finland’s reversal on NATO membership is nothing short of extraordinary. So extraordinary, in fact, that Sweden’s government is struggling to comprehend it. But it has also presented Sweden with the most incredible opportunity in terms of its potential accession to NATO. 

    Taking the lead on the matter, Finland is now energetically stepping forward, sparing Sweden the trouble of having to break the ice on NATO matters. It’s even absorbing the much-feared Russian blow that has so far included not just threats but cyberattacks against its foreign and defense ministries. Russia is, of course, doing its part by demonstrating to all and sundry that it’s not a country with which one can expect good-faith relations. As Marin observed this month, Russia is not the neighbor “we thought it was.” 

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
  5. 17 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

    I admit to having had some alcohol tonight watching the horns baseball game.

    that being said, what the fuck am I looking at and why is it a FFS post?

    I saw something about the Norks but otherwise  I guess I am missing this

    it's a bunch of blown up Russian shit that Oryx has to now catalog. 

  6. 2 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

     

     

    1. could it be more obvious that she's being handled by an FSB officer?

    2. Republicans are generally more hawkish than Democrats, so this isn't a position she's going to be able to hold for long if she wants to keep her job IMHO.

  7. 1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

    In what way?  It's been written into Russian battlefield doctrine for decades that nukes are to be used as a tactical option.  They might not send nukes in NATO countries, but if there is an outside incursion directly against their forces, their tactics are written that nukes are to be used.  That means on Ukrainian soil.  Against Ukrainian populated areas.  

    NATO has said if they use nukes in any fashion that it will intervene. 

    Also, if any of that fallout goes over a NATO country it can trigger Article 5. 

    It's not so much of Russia backing off as it was NATO serving notice. 

×
×
  • Create New...