Russian Tanks Cross Border Into Ukraine

A big factor regarding military spending is NOT "how much" is spent but "WHERE it is spent. The Russians and Chinese don't have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on personnel and personnel related matters.

 

Point taken though if you throw enough ABMs at an incoming nuclear missile strike (say ten ABMs per missile) you can stop the overwhelming majority of the warheads.

 

Naturally, hackers alone cannot win the war. But in conjunction with the country's army, they can. Especially if these hackers are actually specially trained units of the military.
If you live in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles ... or another large city, then disconnecting from your city's life support systems with a simultaneous nuclear gift will lead to chaos and such cities will become easy prey for the enemy. .... However .... The enemy will not even need to occupy these territories, gangs, hunger and disease will destroy this city without the intervention of the enemy.
Or do you think that if you have a Winchester, then you are invulnerable? I will disappoint you. This is not the time of Fenimore Cooper. Wars are fought with other weapons.

 

"Legally" Texas is not part of Mexico. Santa Anna signed it away in 1836, and Mexico did so again in 1848.

 

I only have a 12 gauge pump action shotgun. While I don't figure on winning any wars with it I have a pretty fair chance of keeping all or most of our neighbors at bay. At least those neighbors I don't already have mutual support agreements with anyway.

 

Two videos for you.

1. American amphibious assault landing on the coast of Spain (exercise)



2. Landing of the Russian amphibious assault on the coast (exercises)

 

It's good that you can protect yourself from your neighbors. The bad news is that the neighbors around you, judging by your comment, are ready to kill you.
What is the reason for mutual hatred?

 

You don't actually think Russia's amphibious assault capabilities are on par with the USA's, do you?

 

Where did you get that idea?

 

The legal meaning is to deceive the population. The main thing is the actual possibilities. For example. The United States started an illegal war in Iraq, but to justify these actions, American politicians, media and lawyers began to lie about Saddam Hussein's "chemical weapons". Thus, in order to fool the population, the legal justification for the invasion of Iraq was invented.
And such examples are countless. The same "Tonkin incident" and the Vietnam war, or the explosion in the Havana port of the American battleship Maine, as a legal reason for the US attack on Spain for the sake of control of the Caribbean.
Therefore, it is ridiculous to refer to the legal aspect in global politics.

 

Of course I don’t think so. Russian amphibious capabilities are much higher.
Read how Russian marines defeated a fortified Japanese military base in the Kuril Islands. Compare the strengths of the parties.

 

Can your comment be interpreted otherwise? - "While I don't figure on winning any wars with it I have a pretty fair chance of keeping all or most of our neighbors at bay. At least those neighbors I don't already have mutual support agreements with anyway."

 

Now you're trolling. Russian amphibious capabilities have been considered a joke compared to those of the U.S. for decades.

 

You know one of the Gulf of Tonkin attacks actually happened don't you? The North Vietnamese themselves admitted it at the time and years later.

And the U.S.S. Maine did explode with huge loss of life in Havana harbor.

 

You're basing you claim on a battle SEVENTY FIVE YEARS AGO!!!???

 

Yes Yes. Tell us more about Operation Overlord, when the American paratroopers tried to defeat the disabled Germans. (if you don't know, then know that the Anglo-American soldiers were opposed by the disabled. Unsuitable for health reasons to fight on the eastern front. All combat-ready units of the Germans fought on the eastern front. The Americans faced a real enemy only in the Ardennes. Then, when Roosevelt prayed Stalin, so that the Russians go on the offensive and draw all the combat-ready forces of the Germans to themselves. Otherwise, the Anglo-American troops will be defeated)

 

Looking for fresh examples? Read how Russian paratroopers are fighting in Syria. For example, when they defended Palmyra.

 

Naturally a real incident, naturally a real explosion of a battleship. But who did it? And then how they disposed of this opportunity.
Pearl Harbor is also not clean if you dig deeper.
And in this context, it doesn't matter whether it was a lie about "Hussein's chemical weapons" or a real explosion of a battleship. The very process of giving legitimacy to certain actions is important. For example the invasion of Syria.
You know that only Russians are in Syria legally, because Russians are in Syria at the invitation of the legally elected government of this country. All others, including the United States, are aggressors and occupiers.

 

The main difference between the US and Russia, is that the US is not defending its people, culture and territory from an aggressive enemy.

 

The West will not, cannot allow Fascist Russia conquer more of Ukraine.

 

Goes on to show just how naïve Trump was about Putin aka 'The Killer' and Russia.

 

If the West lets Putin steal eastern Ukraine, Finland, Lithuania and Belarus will be next.

Then Putin will DEMAND the return of all lands in Europe that used to belong to the Czar.

 

.

I've not much more to say on this topic... except this:

Like Ananias to Saul.... Like Basil to Ivan IV... God assigned me to the Tsar.
But Putin has withstood me for 21 years. The time has come for Michael to stand up!

.

 

WHY should it matter to you? Stay in Amerika and mind your own business!

 

When I was young we were taught how the New York Herald and the New York Tribune caused the war with Spain. Each one was exaggerating what was going on in Cuba so they could sell more papers than the other.

It was a lesson being taught us about propaganda and lies during a more moral era. We really didn't need to go to war, since Spain had already bowed to our demands.

As for control of the Caribbean, we didn't allow any European nation in any part of the America's because they were always at war, so now we're always at war. According to our government it was monarchies that went to wars, not democracies. Well we proved them wrong now didn't we?

Orwell said that he knew the newspapers in Britain spun the news, but he never came across anything like the Spanish Civil War. He said they would write about battles that didn't exist, and make heroes out of cowards and visa versa. If he had delved into the propaganda against the Tsar and his family by the Bolsheviks before the Russian revolution, he would have found the same thing.

​

I'm the father of lies that's what I be,
who laughs at people's misery.
To watch them as they lie and steal.
The fools, they think they're being real..

But fools they were and fools they'll be
for they have eyes but cannot see,
and think that playing wicked games
will bring them power, wealth and fame.

But what they want will not be so.
Instead of heights they've fallen low.
And covered up with filth and muck.
Tough luck I know, but they deserve it - Jeannette


​