re: Russia Withdrawing Troops Near Kyiv. Is a Strategy To Tactical Nuke Kyiv

If Russia was the only country that possessed nuclear technology, that would be a brilliant strategy. Since they aren't, that strategy has existential ramifications. No way in hell that happens. The only way a nuclear bomb ever gets used in a hostile situation is if a terrorist group gets ahold of one. Or alien invasion.

quote:

---

one of these things is not like the other

---

I was simply referring to radiation issues, and chernobyl is like 45 minutes from Kiev.

quote:

---

Unprovoked!"
A yarn brought to you by the same people who swore Hunter's Laptop was Russian disinformation, and Michael Avenatti was a truth broker.

---

Can you point to an act of aggression that Ukraine did to provoke Russia?

I’ll even accept news from Russian state media as a source

There still is a large force dug in on the NW side. It is possible that it could be cut off from supply routes other than by air.

quote:

---

The Russians are keeping the troops tied up near Kiev with the fake invasion of the city preventing the Ukrainian troops from moving east to support the Dombas region. Manuever warfare. The West knows exactly what the Russians are up to although they spout idiocy on CNN.

---

This guy gets it. Russia does not want western Ukraine. They just want the Donbas. Will do their level best to seize eastern Ukraine up to the Dneiper River. Create a buffer state and send a message.

quote:

---

What was the provocation? A sovereign country seeking protection?

---

Like Cuba?

War is the failure of diplomacy, WE -- the US and NATO -- badly underestimated seriousness of the Russian position. WE -- the US and NATO -- spun the stupidity that Russia would tolerate the world's largest military alliance setting up camp immediately across its western border. WE -- the US and NATO -- ignored the military importance of a borderlands buffer in Russian history. From the Russian POV, had Napoleon, or Hitler been able to initiate their quests from Kharkiv instead of Warsaw, Russia would have been reduced to occupation, and defeat.

That you still don't accept this as a predicate for war is stupefying. It's demonstrative of how deeply inculcating US propaganda can be.

The FACT NATO was the predicate for war is not even debatable at this point. Recognizing the fact neither speaks to its legitimacy nor insinuates NATO had military designs on attacking Russia. But from Russia's standpoint, they've been fooled twice by large would-be peaceful western military alliances. In the last instance, Russia's threat miscalculation came at a cost of 23 million lives (roughly 50X the US WWII cost). It's a mistake they don't intend to repeat.

quote:

---

Like Cuba?

---

That you find an equivalence is ridiculous.

quote:

---

That you still don't accept this as a predicate for war is stupefying. It's demonstrative of how deeply inculcating US propaganda can be.

---

My point is that it is not a just predicate. They don't truly fear NATO invasion, they want Ukraine as a reserve state for potential future needs.

quote:

---

But from Russia's standpoint, they've been fooled twice by large would-be peaceful western military alliances. In the last instance, Russia's threat miscalculation came at a cost of 23 million lives (roughly 50X the US WWII cost)

---

They were the world's focus of evil for half of the last century. They have been despicable aggressors, not NATO. NATO is what they have sown. They know the world has changed yet this is an excuse made as if it is still the 1940s.