Russian Tanks Cross Border Into Ukraine

Christianity is no longer a problem. It was crushed a long time ago.

Europe suffers from internal division, much more than the US. Enemies like Putin take advantage of this.

 

You do understand that he's responsible for killing MANY of his opponents, yes? He's a Christian in the same way mob bosses are observant Catholics. You should read his biography. He's the quintessential example of the short man cum tough-guy attitude.
BTW, still looking for other sources on this movement of troops and tanks and so far, zip, nada. If you happen to find another source, I'd appreciate seeing it.

 

I was referring to this particular circumstance, because it seems a bit overly-alarmist to, every time even any potential conflict w/ Russia shows its head, to duck ones own head into a bomb shelter. But, as you say, this is your right. It just seemed to me, incorrectly, as it turns out, that you were intimating that this use of nuclear weapons was specifically threatened at this time.

Other than that, I DO agree that this is a worrying situation, as I thought I'd made clear in my post (calling this asymmetry, "so dangerous"). Obviously, to repeat myself, this will always be a possibility if the Russians are losing a fight that Putin is not willing to lose. I've known about this for a good number of years now, & immediately recognized it as a clear cause for concern, needing to be addressed.

I don't think Putin will take the decision lightly, but he'll obviously be much less averse to employing these weapons than ICBMs. For the same reason, Putin's using these weapons WILL NOT likely-- & certainly not automatically-- bring a nuclear response. While it could possibly lead to an in-kind response, that could only be made by a nation that HAS these weapons. As Russia has far MORE than anyone else, it would be the epitome of foolishness to try to respond, leading to (a then-applicable concern of) escalation.
That's why the situation is concerning. It gives Putin the ultimate trump card, or the pre-eminent Joker card, in any military conflict, short of full-scale nuclear war. But the greatest physical dangers, because of the imbalance, are & will be borne by soldiers, and by whoever are the residents, wherever this risk becomes a reality.

 

Let's first get our facts straight, so that I know which type of nuclear attack you are trying to justify. Battlefield nukes, I understood to be depleted-uraniun based. I don't recall the speculated source of the nuclear contamination which the U.S. apparently unleashed on the citizens of Fallujah (they weren't even all combattants, in this large city). But, to answer your question, I think it is splitting atomic hairs, to differentiate between them.

 

Russia has been concentrating on its high technology such as its missile armed stealth subs and electronics rather than on high cost items since they find them more affective.

I came across an interesting complaint by Britain yesterday about Russia jamming its planes in Cyprus. The article I had read (and which I can't find), said that Russia is the only one capable of doing it, and has used them in Syria and Libya.

RAF flights have recently been disrupted by GPS interference near Akrotiri base, in Cyprus. The British military accuses Russian forces deployed in Syria.

RAF Akrotiri is the main base of operations for the Royal Air Force assets participating in Operation Shader against the Islamic State. Aircraft based in southern Cyprus regularly carry out strikes both in Syria and Iraq.

While the exact location of the jammers was not specified, the British military suspects the interferences to be linked to the Russian forces deployed in Syria, given they are the only ones in the region with such capability. Disrupting GPS navigation may be used as a way to forbid the operation of drones around an area.

www.aerotime.aero/27508-russia-suspect-of-jamming-raf-aircraft-gps-signal-cyprus
​

Vladimir Putin said he would use nukes if the Russian Federation was threatened. As for low yield nukes, didn't Clinton use them when he bombed Serbia illegally under the pretense of genocide? I know the Serbs have had quite a few cases of cancer which they attribute to the American bombings.

 

I have never heard this, nor do I think it is at all likely to be true. Other than the health of your particular Serbian friends, can you cite any NEWS source, or other credible study or report (as by the World Health Organization, Doctors Without Borders, or even the Serbian Health Ministry) making your explosive claim?

 

I can't be completely certain, but in my experience, the most effective propaganda is the "big lie". Maybe claiming that Russian tanks are invading Ukraine, again, was intended as a big lie, but it fell flat. The newsies will publish almost anything, as long as it it entertaining. When they don't publish something, that almost always means that it is not interesting, or it hasn't happened, yet.

 

Only idiots would believe that.

 

"battlefield nukes" have nothing to do with depleted uranium. They are called "battlefield nukes" only because of their relatively low yield (often Hiroshima sized).

The U.S. DID NOT cause "nuclear contamination" in Fallujah or anywhere else. The "contamination" caused by depleted uranium shells is simply that caused by almost all heavy metals. All heavy metals are toxic to human beings.

 

I am just trying to head-off a misunderstanding. I took you to be saying (emboldened, at top) that Russia's using even depleted-uranium, battlefield "nuclear" weapons (which are essentially, "dirty shells," hence my loss as to why you want to distinguish between them & "dirty bombs") would cause the whole world to, "take a VERY dim view of them and their leaders." Hence, I pointed out that the U.S. has, quite probably, already used something akin to that, on a grand scale, but that hasn't made us a pariah, in the eyes of the world. To be clear, this is NOT my attempt to say that, "we did it, so it's no big deal if the Russians do." I was casting doubt upon what I took to be your contention that this would be thought of as close to unforgivable, by other nations, and by other humans, in general.

I now note that, to be precise, it was not the use of these weapons that you asserted would bring condemnation, but actually the talk of using them: "when they begin threatening the use of nukes..." Was this an especially important distinction, in your argument; that is, as long as we don't advertise our use of low-grade, nuclear weapons, the relative weakness of the condemnation of the U.S. is understandable, to your mind? Well, if you were proposing that, not using nukes but, speaking about using nukes is the great sin, that seems to be contradicted by the very links you supplied which, I presume, quote Putin as having ALREADY made this threat, in the past, which I take it you were already aware of, so it is not at all clear what it is you are arguing against.

 

So far I've found **** all for any evidence of any troop/tank movements into Ukraine,....no move on Kharkiv or Odessa. This would've been news of epic proportions, and most newswire around the world would've carried it.

Furthermore.....actually,there will be some major troop movements in and around Odessa this summer.....but that will include most of NATO with US, UK, Canada, Germany, Spain, Baltics, Poland, Turkey, etc.....which could involve upwards of 40K troops.

What missile attacks you talk about Jenny??

And what major naval moves did Moskolia make....that obviously wasn't reported?

Seems like you've **** the bed here....and those links you provided is some wingnut that's obviously hallucinating.

 

How would Russia deploy its fleet into the Caspian Sea? The Caspian Sea is a lake. Landlocked.

 

Did you ever hear of Cui Bono? It means who gains from it. Nemtsov had about a 3% political following in Russia, so he was of no more use to his Western handlers. He was of use to them dead for the anti Putin propaganda it would give them, so they killed him in front of the Kremlin.

Sergei and Yulia Skripal were poisoned by the MI6 because the MI6 found out her boy friend and mother were Russian agents. They feared she was passing information so they decided to poison them and blame Vladimir Putin.

Navalny had only a 2% following, and failed in everything he was assigned to do by his Western handlers. He didn't manage to keep the new constitution from being passed and he failed with the rebellion in the Far East as well. They felt he wasn't worth the money they were giving him, so they decided to get rid of him. Since he's a diabetic, they gave him an overdose of his medication.

The Russian doctors managed to save his life, something his handlers didn't expect so they told his wife to send him to the Charite Hospital in Berlin. Once there, they decided to say he was given Novichek so they could put the blame on Vladimir Putin. They then gave him one more chance with the fake video of Putin's Palace.

I read Sharon Tennyson's account:

Sharon: “Lena what do you think about your new president?” She laughed and retorted, “Volodya! I went to school with him!”

She began to describe Putin as a quiet youngster, poor, fond of martial arts, who stood up for kids being bullied on the playgrounds.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/06/understanding-russia-un-demonizing-putin/
​

So much for Putin being a bully.

In order to free Russia and give it back to the Russian people after its American kleptocracy years, Putin had to get rid of its criminal elements. They all went to London and came here, and that's where all the demonizing of Vladimir Putin is coming from.

 

I believe you have all your facts wrong. Battlefield nukes are not, to my knowledge, Hiroshima-sized explosions. They are shells made of radioactive metal, which then brings radiation sickness &, potentially, death to the soldiers missed by the actual explosive force & flying fragments from this shell. For their part, the Russians would only need don gas masks & radiation-shielding clothing, to continue fighting. They would not, on the other hand, be able to have Russian troops engaged with enemy combattants and simultaneously assault them with a Hiroshima bomb.

What makes these weapons, "low yield," is precisely the fact that the uranium used in them has been partially depleted. In other words, that term refers to the radioactive yield, not the blast size. Once uranium falls beneath a certain grade of enrichment, it is incapable of initiating the nuclear chain reaction that we think of as a nuclear explosion.

As to Fallujah, the U.S., was not known to be using depleted uranium shells. If you think about it for a minute, you should be able to realize why radioactive metals in any battlefield munition is not sanctioned as OK. Depleted uranium shells are battlefield nukes: very low-grade, "dirty bombs," if you wish. Way back when I read about this (from an article by Project Censored), I don't think it was known, for certain, all the particulars of the American use of this prohibited type of weapon; nor may they ever. The investigators were only there to look into reports of a dramatic increase in birth defects, not to investigate the U.S. military, per se. But they found their results inconsistent with any known phenomena, save for one: the symmetry between the Fallujah- residents & the survivors of the two atomic bomb attacks on Japan was so stark, there was no question as to the cause. I think I remember their being speculation that the U.S. must have contaminated the water with nuclear radiation.

https://www.projectcensored.org/

 

Utterly wrong on all counts. Depleted uranium shells have NEVER been considered to be any kind of nuclear weapon by the U.S. government or military.

Hell, the U.S. uses depleted uranium in the armor of M-1Abrams tanks.

Depleted uranium shells have never been prohibited by anyone.

Elevated incidences of cancer are not evidence of nuclear weapons use of any kind.

 

Either way - these are chemical weapons - should be banned - like other chemical weapons.. We don't have "battlefield nukes" .. as in the fission reaction occurring as you state .. and if one did go off .. all hell would break loose in the world .. are we not signitories to treaties banning such things ?

but to the OP - Ukraine is Russia's back yard - and they have been behaving badly towards the Russian Minority for a long time - Trying to Join Nato was a straw on the camel's back too far w/r to the Strategic Port in Crimea that Russia has held for some 400 years.

There was no doubt in anyone's mind - the NATO talking heads - all feigning ignorance when the Bear was poked one too many times.
And the litany of previous pokes is long .. bear didn't react much .. a little wake from slumber with Georgia .. slept right through Yugoslavia .

Yeah .. lets destabilize nuclear detent .. by putting ABM's on Russia's borders - in violation of the ABM treaty that Bush backed out of round 2001 - and then round 2007 declaring the plan to put ABM's in Poland and Chec . .. or was it Romania . two Eastern European Neighbors of Russia .. and this was after years of Russia moving out of Eastern Europe - Nato moving in and building bases .. again in violation of agreements .. poking the Bear.

Yeah . Crimea was a bridge too far .. and Ukraine better be careful .. as US don't have much sway these days - not much diplomacy going on .. at the same time we are fighting a similar battle with China - who is violating the Iran Sanctions - negating our influence - and happily trading with Russia - negating our influence ..

Who together - along with much of the Rest of the world - are working on a competitor to the US dollar Sole Status as the international system of trade. .. and that much of the Rest of the world includes Europe - something that has been clamored for for a long time..

and Trump using the so called Economic "Nuclear Option" violating the sovereignty of every nation on the planet at the same time - didn't help much .. Threatening to bar banks - corporations out of the international system - should they violate Trumps unilateral sanctions..

Economic war going on - and we are getting it handed to us on the geopolitical chessboard - and Biden not off to a good start - in attempts to rectify position on the board.

 

Christianity grows under persecution, and the Churches might be underground in Europe, China, and the Middle East, but not in Russia. An average of three churches have been built every single day for the past 30 years..

Enjoy!

 

Excellent post! I believe Lavrov wants nations to stop using the American dollar. Russia has its own system in case it's kicked off SWIFT, and will be uniting it with China, Iran, Venezuela and some other countries. We're in for a hard time.

 

1) Depleted uranium shells are NOT chemical weapons either.
2) The United States is not part of any treaty banning the use of actual nuclear weapons.
3) The ABM Treaty is no longer binding upon the U.S. as the Bush Admin. exercised this countries right under the treaty to withdraw from it with six months notification to the Russians (which we provided).
4) You're welcome.

 

Brazil - India - Oman - Qatar - Turkey - Syria - Iraq - with the EU and Saudi Arabia not far behind.

 

I believe Russia has ships in the Caspian Sea. I recall a few years back that Russia had missiles hit a target in Syria from a ship in the Caspian Sea. It hit its target, but what surprised the Americans was that it was shot from a small ship.

I think there is a river and canal connection between the Caspian and Black Sea, but I don't know if the navy uses it.

 

1) of course they are chemical weapons - or are you claiming that depleted uranium is not a chemical ?
2) You would not know one way or the other - in all likelihood .. and I said if not we should be in any case ..
3) why are you repeating back to me what was stated in my post - and then 4) thanking me.

What a bunch of trollop

 

LOL....good luck with Lavrov convincing other countries to ditch the US$.....and use what?

Yes,Iran & Venezuela ....2 tinpot economies thatre worth around $500...

 

1) Whether a part of a weapon is a "chemical" or not is NOT what defines it as a "chemical weapon".
2) U.S. treaties and other international agreements have always been matters of public record.
3) Simply stating that you can't bitch and moan about the U.S. deploying ABMs when we're not prohibited from doing so any way.

note, wikipedia definition of a chemical weapon (emphasis mine).

A chemical weapon (CW) is a specialized munition that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm on humans. According to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), "the term chemical weapon may also be applied to any toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action. Munitions or other delivery devices designed to deliver chemical weapons, whether filled or unfilled, are also considered weapons themselves.

 

This should be of interest Zoomy boy. I picked it up from a poster in Moon of Alabama. Seems like 13 national and foreign news outlets, including Radio Liberty, France-Presse and Reuters, have arrived in the Joint Forces Operation zone and are massing in the territories around Donetsk to give their spin on the situation.

Zelensky in the meantime is waiting for the "go ahead" from the White House. The assumption is that there will be a false flag attack by Ukraine.