Kyiv:UAF begin offensive ops in specific areas.

he did yes, but I think you have to take that in the context of the European view of the conflict generally; especially a wobbling Germany. He's laying the groundwork by sending a message to the effect that the European population need to get used to the fact that there is actually a war in Europe and that their security viewpoint has markedly changed because of Russia and it's intention to empire. The war started in 2014 but most people have no idea why or what really happened. Macron is merely message sending....he's putting out the message that Europe and the EU really are entering a new era and they need to be preparing for it....life is not a bowl of cherries and Germany is no longer going to be providing the bowl or the cherries.

 

The claim that NATO is not an existential threat to Russia is about as wrong as it gets friend .. might as well claim that Russian's putting nukes in Cuba was not an existential threat to USA .. your claim completely backwards to reality and don't let the backslaps by those doing the Orc Orc Cheer fool you

 

NATO countries have the capability of turning Moscow and St.Petes etc. into a glass sheet so in theory they could be an existential threat...but nobody in "NATO" or Russia or China et al are contemplating the use of nuclear weapons...therefore these weapons are merely functioning in exactly the role that they were designed for....as a deterrent....so there you go....job done backslaps all round home for tea and biscuits.

 

Could be, but France could right now be more furious about Russia than a lot of other European nations, at least the Western European nations which dont face an immediate direct threat.

1. As a matter of factFrance and Russia are fighting a proxy war in Central Africa. Russia had some mentionable success with its mercenaries in taking over gold reserves and states which were up to now under French influsnce and forced into economic dependency on France. No doubt Russia will use its influence to pillage there just as ugly as the Frenchmen did, but they had some success and is threatening France's system there to economically exploit mines and ressource deposits in Central Africa. So there is a national interest for France to see Russia collapse.

2. Macron as he tried to offer himself as Putin's man in Western Europe for a long time could feel betrayed and embarrassed by Putin for the reason his foreign policy before trying to establish good relationships with Russia negotiate looks foolish and stupid in the aftermath as Putin stepped him in the back.

3. France has at the moment excellent equipment good for interventions, but not the quantitiy at the moment to face an all out war. It could use a small expedition force in the Ukraine to inflict horrific losses on the Russian side as a addition to a bigger Ukrainian force. It has a national tradition to use its military for its national interest, may NATO say whatever it wants, they have atomic bombs in the case Putin wants to intimidate them.

I am not quite sure if Macron's words are empty threats.

 

yeah...it's an intriguing dynamic isn't....personally though I think it's more like just keeping people off-balance. Question, "Are you going to attack me", answer "no". That's pretty unequivocal. However, the same question with a different response "we can't rule anything out" leaves room for doubt. Which in truth was what the Americans should maybe have said right from the start. Why give comfort to your enemy when you can leave doubt in their minds.

 

Putin: Imperialism -- Aggressive War of Conquest
NATO: Defense Treaty

 

Will Putin bet his life and the survival of the nation he rules on an assumption that "Macron's words are empty threats"?

 

US-Nato have engaged in many aggressive war's of Conquest far more than Putin who is defending strategic interest and from existential threat.

What part of .. Russia putting nukes in Cuba was viewed as an existential threat -- is not finding understanding ? and crying out .. aggressive war of conquest against Ukraine .. does not change this fact. u understand ?! Yes .. Yes

 

Complete tom foolery afoot methinks .. "nobody contemplating use of nukes" ??? what on earth ? Everybody in the equation is always contemplating the use of nukes .. what the frick and frack tom foolery are you selling ???

Nukes in Cuba "Could BE" an existential threat .. nukes in space even more so .. just maybe its possible .. such screams from the Pentagon would be heard round the world ... akin to pains of child-birth .. the intent of the party to use those nukes having Zero effect on those screams .. Ding Dong !!! Knock Knock .. Whos there .. Nukes in space .. thats who .. Betty .. who's at the door .. nothing Henry .. just some xmas Carol singers wishing good tidings .. and backslaps all round and some of Zoomers finest air biscuits for all .

"Deterrent" -- ?? Yes Scottie .. beam me up .. there's a nuclear missile down here and she is ready to blow ! which is why we have nuclear missiles as a deterrence against existential threat .. but hold on Captain .. it doesn't work that way in reverse does it ? .. does it ? .. Spock .. help us with this logical fallacy and disingenuous oblivion hypocrisy .. Does it really not work in reverse such that by definition .. Deterrence is on the basis of existential threat ...

Ohhhh ... my wonder lads .. this learning is hard sometimes.

 

It didn't get real for Hitler until he was trapped in his bunker.

"Moscow's forces fighting in Ukraine have lost two combat planes in just 72 hours, according to reports. The Fighterbomber Telegram channel, which has links to the Russian Aerospace Forces, reported the loss of a Russian Su-34 aircraft and the deaths of its crew members late on Monday. " Isabel Van Brugen

Newsweek
Russia Rues Loss of Two Combat Planes in Just 72 Hours Russia's air force has suffered extensive casualties throughout the war in Ukraine..
50 minutes ago [May 7, 2024]
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-combat-planes-jets-downed-ukraine-1897817

 

List the NATO imperialist wars of conquest.

 

What part of US-NATO -- did you not understand .. and that you use the term "War of Conquest" .. ridiculous moving the goal post fallacy .. the term under discussion is action in relation to existential threat or strategic interest .. Such as the Special Military Operation in Ukraine.

Examples of US-NATO are many .. how far back do you wish to go .. Iran-Iraq War, Iraq war 1 (desert Storm), Iraq war 2, Syrian War, Yemen war, Libya, Serbia, East Timor, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador ... ..oh .. and let us not forget to add the Genocide Joe and the Gaza Concentration camp to the list.

and you could not come up with one (1) .. that that was since 1980 .. and I gave you Eleven (11) .. existential bliss ?!

 

It's a special genocide & conquest operation, Gifter, just like the one launched by Hitler 80 years prior.

 

There are differences -- Hitlers Operation was more extensive and killed far more of the unclean filth than what Bibi has managed .. mind you .. if we look at the Warsaw Ghetto ... them brown shirts don't have nothing on Bibi .. so I guess you are right that Bibi's special extermination and conquest operation is quite similar to what Hitler Launched indeed.. Bibi perhaps more advanced .. but my guess is that he will be stopped prior to getting as far as Adolf.

Now the Azov Nazi's over in Ukraine .. they were like in the really early days .. when the brown shirts were conducting pogroms against the unclean population .. the Azov called them "Orcs" -- a dehumanization trope you may have heard in use by the Cheer team .. so that would be a very early stage kind of thing you are referring to .. hence the Special Denazification operation .. in an effort to get rid of the Neo Nazi wannabe's .

 

Unfortunately for the Russians, their efforts seem to be producing the opposite of their hoped-for result.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, May 6, 2024
May 6, 2024 - ISW Press



The Kremlin appears to be re-intensifying a reflexive control campaign targeting Western decision-making using nuclear threats and diplomatic manipulation. Reflexive control is a key element of Russia’s hybrid warfare toolkit — it is a tactic that relies on shaping an adversary with targeted rhetoric and information operations in such a way that the adversary voluntarily takes actions that are advantageous to Russia.

 

Hi, I'm not as good as the others here at deciphering what you're trying to get at so.....could you try to condense that into a thought...or question..? You mentioned "existential threat" three times above, is there a point you're trying to make?

 

Quite possible....true, the command structure atmosphere in Ukraine isn't compatible with NATO "operability" one could say....I just read into certain comments and actions of these leaders like Macron,Sunpak, Scholz.

It'll be interesting....that's if...front lines are solidified....when the F16s arrive and starts operations....if that land link is cut....the orcs have a huge problem.

 

...was thinking more on your comment and there is an interesting wrinkle in that there are a number of AWOL Legionaires in Ukraine; whether they're still alive dead who knows, but at the start of the conflict ethnic Ukrainians (those eligible at least) were allowed to return to Ukraine via Poland to get immediate family out under the proviso that they were still under contract with the FFL etc and were duty bound to return to their units. Most did return although some went AWOL and fought for Ukraine...I wonder if those that are still there remain in contact with their former FFL units - having an experienced cadre of SNCO/WOs with first hand knowledge would be a big help to these FFL units. Another wrinkle is the fact that within the FFL are a shed load of ethnic Russian ex-special forces types who you'd expect to keep contact with their old mates/units.... balance that one out and you could (all things being equal) obtain a reasonably accurate first hand view of both sides of the conflict...

 

Re: "ridiculous moving the goal post fallacy".
This was the "goal post" you just moved: "Putin: Imperialism -- Aggressive War of Conquest; NATO: Defense Treaty"

The military engagements you listed were in many instances responses to other imperialist dictators invading other countries.
The US and its allies stopped aggressive wars of conquest. This was very bad for the dictators involved. Does this really sadden you?

 

OH I think your deciphering skills are just fine commander Scott --- How is it that you can not figure out that Russian Missiles in Cuba was an existential threat...

Your term "aggressive war of conquest" is ridiculous nonsense .. moving the goal post from "existential threat" .. but regardless .. all the wars mentioned were aggressive wars of conquest .. just as much as Russia's special military operation in Ukraine is an aggressive war of conquest. Iraq - Syria - Libya.

What is laughable nonsense on steroids is your claim that a nation having a dictator somehow makes the action not an aggressive war of conquest .. and yes it is very sad you can not figure out that Missiles in Cuba was viewed as an existential threat .. What's up with that friend ?

 

07 May: Airfield Inferno: Ukrainian Drones Target Russian Military Might!

 

Update from Ukraine | Putin failed to Eliminate Zelensky | Ukraine used ATACMS in Luhansk


Denys talks about the moronic American who got arrested in mafialand. His penis led him over there to meet a woman and she accused him of trying to steal $2,000 in rubbles and beating her. He was also apparently so stupid that he was anti-NATO and pro-Z.

Now I guess he will get to be the next political prisoner and bargaining chip to be traded for some imprisoned Russian scumbag. Serves him right, and any American dumb enough to go to mafialand these days deserves what he or she gets.

 

Avoid that cesspit at all costs.

 

Going there is playing Russian roulette.

 

okay....got you....sorry I though we were discussing Russia/Ukraine war....my mistake.....so, the Cuban missile crisis is not something I don't know much about so determining whether the threats involve or the gambits and moves and counter moves by either party would be construed in terms of "Existential Threat" at that time would be merely off the cuff. I would just comment that on the basis that at that time there was no conflict taking place, there was no harm being inflicted on the US or it's allies and that viable options did exist; indeed alternative outcomes did in fact take place which de-risked and de-conflicted the situation. This was in part based on the intelligence available and Kremlin/White House negotiations; so on this basis alone, no I would have to say that the Cuban Missile crises as it unfolded at the time did not constitute an "existential threat" to any party. As I say I'm not that familiar with the situation but based on a cursor overview and the doctrines governing the release of nuclear weapons at the time I'd be inclined to disagree with you and categorise this as a major diplomatic incident. That's my thoughts....