It's even worse for men in Russia, who have a life expectancy of only 66 years, versus 75 years in the US. 66 years puts Russia in league with some of the poorest 3rd world countries, well behind hellholes like North Korea.
Russian men have the habit of falling out of windows or off balconies.
And I feel comfortable saying that Russia has shown ZERO restraint (apart from weapons of mass destruction, which would only serve to hasten Russia's demise). Russia hasn't even declared war, so how can the US / NATO providing targeting information be an act of war? Even if Russia decides it is an act of war, what are they going to do about it? Bomb NATO troops in Poland, Germany, elsewhere in Europe? Target a US spy satellite? I'm sure that will end well for Russia...
Russia is being torn limb from limb using second (or third) hand NATO weapons. Russia doesn't want to escalate to the point of actual advanced NATO weapons being employed.
RU has shown restraint. It hasn't used gas or other unconventional weapons that it could use if it wanted. There's no real reason the government buildings in Kyiv are still standing - RU could hit them tomorrow if it really wanted to, after gassing Kyiv and Odessa.
Mutually assured destruction makes it clear to RU that it will not be fighting NATO troops. And RU knows that the one way to get the RU public 100% onboard the Putin Express is to have Russian boys fighting NATO head to head. NATO knows that too and will stand back.
Sure, Russia could knock down buildings in Kyiv. But, to what end? It provides zero strategic advantage. That doesn’t mean they won’t do it. Just that doing so would be pointless.
And, yes, Russia could use gas in Kyiv. Again, it doesn’t help the poor conscript freezing to death near Bakhmut. And, it would only strength NATO resolve to deploy better weapons. No need for NATO troops to be involved directly.
RU has shown restraint. It hasn't used gas or other unconventional weapons that it could use if it wanted. There's no real reason the government buildings in Kyiv are still standing - RU could hit them tomorrow if it really wanted to, after gassing Kyiv and Odessa.
Mutually assured destruction makes it clear to RU that it will not be fighting NATO troops. And RU knows that the one way to get the RU public 100% onboard the Putin Express is to have Russian boys fighting NATO head to head. NATO knows that too and will stand back.
Sure, Russia could knock down buildings in Kyiv. But, to what end? It provides zero strategic advantage. That doesn’t mean they won’t do it. Just that doing so would be pointless.
And, yes, Russia could use gas in Kyiv. Again, it doesn’t help the poor conscript freezing to death near Bakhmut. And, it would only strength NATO resolve to deploy better weapons. No need for NATO troops to be involved directly.
pointless? hard to say. But that's not the question. RU Could have burned down Kyiv and Odessa with napalm or whatever they use but they haven't. They have used restraint to some degree.
And anyway, RU's method is to turn enemy cities to rubble - see chechnya and syria for examples. They do it to destroy the enemy in every way. Allies did the same in WW2. RU is quite good at it. But they haven't done it to Kyiv or Odessa.
pointless? hard to say. But that's not the question. RU Could have burned down Kyiv and Odessa with napalm or whatever they use but they haven't. They have used restraint to some degree.
And anyway, RU's method is to turn enemy cities to rubble - see chechnya and syria for examples. They do it to destroy the enemy in every way. Allies did the same in WW2. RU is quite good at it. But they haven't done it to Kyiv or Odessa.
There were no mechanized enemy armies in Chechnya or Syria. Those conflicts were the Russian military against an insurgency. What had happened in 10 months in Ukraine had no similarity to those conflicts. The Russian military still had no ability to gain air superiority.
If you keep overestimating the ability of the Russian state to wage war, maybe you should reevaluate your priors.
Sure, Russia could knock down buildings in Kyiv. But, to what end? It provides zero strategic advantage. That doesn’t mean they won’t do it. Just that doing so would be pointless.
And, yes, Russia could use gas in Kyiv. Again, it doesn’t help the poor conscript freezing to death near Bakhmut. And, it would only strength NATO resolve to deploy better weapons. No need for NATO troops to be involved directly.
pointless? hard to say. But that's not the question. RU Could have burned down Kyiv and Odessa with napalm or whatever they use but they haven't. They have used restraint to some degree.
And anyway, RU's method is to turn enemy cities to rubble - see chechnya and syria for examples. They do it to destroy the enemy in every way. Allies did the same in WW2. RU is quite good at it. But they haven't done it to Kyiv or Odessa.
I concede that they "showed restraint" because they didn't launch all of their nuclear warheads at every NATO country.
I don't think they "showed restraint" in not burning Kyiv and Odessa with napalm, I think it was a strategic decision to not invite significant escalation from NATO, which would have lead to the near immediate demise of the Russia empire.
pointless? hard to say. But that's not the question. RU Could have burned down Kyiv and Odessa with napalm or whatever they use but they haven't. They have used restraint to some degree.
And anyway, RU's method is to turn enemy cities to rubble - see chechnya and syria for examples. They do it to destroy the enemy in every way. Allies did the same in WW2. RU is quite good at it. But they haven't done it to Kyiv or Odessa.
I concede that they "showed restraint" because they didn't launch all of their nuclear warheads at every NATO country.
I don't think they "showed restraint" in not burning Kyiv and Odessa with napalm, I think it was a strategic decision to not invite significant escalation from NATO, which would have lead to the near immediate demise of the Russia empire.
What part of mutually assured destruction do you not understand? NATO cannot attack RU. RU cannot attack NATO
that’s what it is, until we eliminate all nukes. RU could napalm Kyiv and not be attacked by NATO. They haven’t.
I concede that they "showed restraint" because they didn't launch all of their nuclear warheads at every NATO country.
I don't think they "showed restraint" in not burning Kyiv and Odessa with napalm, I think it was a strategic decision to not invite significant escalation from NATO, which would have lead to the near immediate demise of the Russia empire.
What part of mutually assured destruction do you not understand? NATO cannot attack RU. RU cannot attack NATO
that’s what it is, until we eliminate all nukes. RU could napalm Kyiv and not be attacked by NATO. They haven’t.
I’m saying that Russia napalming zkyiv would result in their destruction.
Are you in your late 90's? WW2 is before my time. Korean Conflict, before my time. I was in military not too long after Viet Nam Conflict. Served with decorated guys from Viet Nam. Worked in government through first term of W. Best if others do Ukraine Conflict and WW2 & Korean Conflict comparison and contrast.
I feel comfortable calling Balls & Strikes in this conflict.
Regarding words stated by XY: I will await a post from March, if he wants to discuss. I recall being very surprised, March & April how much risk U.S. was taking providing real time target surveillance to Ukraine. I recall being very surprised back in March & April that U.S. was acting as Forward Observer for Ukraine which is an Act of War. Russia has shown much restraint.
You know, there’s a LOT of competition for “Dumbest Paragraph of the ____” on Letsrun. But your first one above is in the thick of it.
You know who aren’t in their 90s and whom we trust to fight our next war (and would likely route Russia easily) but are familiar with much or all of that silly olden days stuff? Pretty much every senior operational officer in the US military.
Tell me again about these “smart tactics” the Russians are using.
Anatomy of an OPSEC failure. A Russian volunteer posted photos on VK in Sahy, Kherson Oblast with member of the GRU's 10th Spetsnaz Brigade. He left the location tagging on, which makes it very easy to geolocate the Grand Prix country club from the tiles.https://t.co/NrnmXC0HtPpic.twitter.com/DG8AtMObY2
What part of mutually assured destruction do you not understand? NATO cannot attack RU. RU cannot attack NATO
that’s what it is, until we eliminate all nukes. RU could napalm Kyiv and not be attacked by NATO. They haven’t.
Agip, man, c'mon. Think this through. For MONTHS now, Russia has been sending missiles and Iranian droves at Kyiv. Most have been getting shot down. Clearly Russia wants to reduce Kyiv to rubble as much as it possibly can. The reason it hasn't happened yet is because Russia can't do it. It has to import Iranian drones because it burned through its missile stocks too quickly and doesn't have the industrial capacity to build a lot more in a short time. Now that Kyiv has experience with air defense and some capable western air defense systems, the attacks are getting to be less and less effective. Some infrastructure gets damaged, but it's a far cry from what Russia wishes it could do.
The options you're mentioning - poison gas on civilian cities? nuclear weapons? - are the kind of thing that would likely lead to direct NATO intervention. Nothing's impossible, but the things you're proposing are very unlikely.
What part of mutually assured destruction do you not understand? NATO cannot attack RU. RU cannot attack NATO
that’s what it is, until we eliminate all nukes. RU could napalm Kyiv and not be attacked by NATO. They haven’t.
Agip, man, c'mon. Think this through. For MONTHS now, Russia has been sending missiles and Iranian droves at Kyiv. Most have been getting shot down. Clearly Russia wants to reduce Kyiv to rubble as much as it possibly can. The reason it hasn't happened yet is because Russia can't do it. It has to import Iranian drones because it burned through its missile stocks too quickly and doesn't have the industrial capacity to build a lot more in a short time. Now that Kyiv has experience with air defense and some capable western air defense systems, the attacks are getting to be less and less effective. Some infrastructure gets damaged, but it's a far cry from what Russia wishes it could do.
The options you're mentioning - poison gas on civilian cities? nuclear weapons? - are the kind of thing that would likely lead to direct NATO intervention. Nothing's impossible, but the things you're proposing are very unlikely.
Ok I’ll ask you too: what part of mutually assured destruction do you not understand, and why do you think direct NATO involvement would not trigger direct Russian aggression against western cities and armies?
45,000 dead americans a year. every. single. year. Your unregulated vulture capitalism is the worst. You'd be better off copying other capitalist countries OR communist countries, ALL have universal healthcare. The common denominator among ALL countries is universal healthcare, which you lack. but hey, you can kill people in other countries with fake wars.... that way you can also kill americans in america! great logic you have
Average Russian life span: 71
Average US life span: 78
Damn, Russian society must really suck
Russia has 4 homeless people for every 10k.
america has 17.6 / 10k
Damn, american society must really suck
Enjoy your 78 years.... on the streets.
78..... and newly homeless after claiming medical bankruptcy (which america leads the world in). USA! USA! USA! Being sucked dry of every penny in overpriced care facilities, out of your mind on a long list of a prescription drug cascade, getting your diapers changed and body rotated in your tent on the sidewalk to avoid bed sores from your cardboard mattress. A miserable life-support ending to suck you dry, then suck your family dry. Voila! for-profit deathcare. america is a death and debt society. unchecked, vulture capitalism. poor and middle-class americans are cannon fodder for rich ones.
Russia's universal healthcare is in utter shambles and its STILL better than america's for-profit death care. covid proved america is really a third world country with a fake Gucci bag.
I left California 11 years ago for Tokyo. When people ask me where I am from, I tell them "I'm from the top terrorist country in the world" then I ask them to guess. They always guess correctly and say america. Some hesitate and don't want to answer but I urge them to answer anyway. Even clueless Japanese guess it's america. Europeans always guess right too. and other Asians too. I have repeated this scenario so many times. The biggest threat to world peace every year is america. that's how our peers vote in polls every year. It's how they think about us, because they know the truth...
pointless? hard to say. But that's not the question. RU Could have burned down Kyiv and Odessa with napalm or whatever they use but they haven't. They have used restraint to some degree.
And anyway, RU's method is to turn enemy cities to rubble - see chechnya and syria for examples. They do it to destroy the enemy in every way. Allies did the same in WW2. RU is quite good at it. But they haven't done it to Kyiv or Odessa.
I concede that they "showed restraint" because they didn't launch all of their nuclear warheads at every NATO country.
I don't think they "showed restraint" in not burning Kyiv and Odessa with napalm, I think it was a strategic decision to not invite significant escalation from NATO, which would have lead to the near immediate demise of the Russia empire.
1) Russia initially wasn't targetting civilian infrastructure at scale because they expected to control the country and would need that infrastructure.
2) Because Russia has failed to suppress Ukrainian air defenses they have limited ability to bomb the crap out of cities. Cruise missiles are a very expensive way to blow stuff up. Russia has only turned cities to rubble when they had air superiority or were within artillery range. Typical western doctrine would be to use cruise missiles against high value targets, specifically air defense and communications systems to enable aerial bombing using cheaper ordinance.
3) It's probable, at least now that Ukraine has shown aptitude for resisting Russian air attacts, that the west would provide ever more upgraded air defenses, as they have been in response to the recent cruise missile and suicide drone barrages.
4) It isn't out of the question that NATO would enforce a no-fly zone were there to be a major increase in bombardment of civilian targets. It's not apparent that Russia has the resources or will to do this and it would obviously raise the stakes, but with the calculus that Russia doesn't go nuclear unless there is a existential threat to Russia homeland.
78..... and newly homeless after claiming medical bankruptcy (which america leads the world in). USA! USA! USA! Being sucked dry of every penny in overpriced care facilities, out of your mind on a long list of a prescription drug cascade, getting your diapers changed and body rotated in your tent on the sidewalk to avoid bed sores from your cardboard mattress. A miserable life-support ending to suck you dry, then suck your family dry. Voila! for-profit deathcare. america is a death and debt society. unchecked, vulture capitalism. poor and middle-class americans are cannon fodder for rich ones.
Russia's universal healthcare is in utter shambles and its STILL better than america's for-profit death care. covid proved america is really a third world country with a fake Gucci bag.
I left California 11 years ago for Tokyo. When people ask me where I am from, I tell them "I'm from the top terrorist country in the world" then I ask them to guess. They always guess correctly and say america. Some hesitate and don't want to answer but I urge them to answer anyway. Even clueless Japanese guess it's america. Europeans always guess right too. and other Asians too. I have repeated this scenario so many times. The biggest threat to world peace every year is america. that's how our peers vote in polls every year. It's how they think about us, because they know the truth...
Lolly leaves as part of his promised New Years resolution, and then a day later this ceccione clown appears for the first time in a 577 page thread, spouting the same America-bashing garbage as Lolly, except purportedly from Tokyo instead of Geneva. Posts like a duck, thinks like a duck, spazzes like a duck . . . .
Agip, man, c'mon. Think this through. For MONTHS now, Russia has been sending missiles and Iranian droves at Kyiv. Most have been getting shot down. Clearly Russia wants to reduce Kyiv to rubble as much as it possibly can. The reason it hasn't happened yet is because Russia can't do it. It has to import Iranian drones because it burned through its missile stocks too quickly and doesn't have the industrial capacity to build a lot more in a short time. Now that Kyiv has experience with air defense and some capable western air defense systems, the attacks are getting to be less and less effective. Some infrastructure gets damaged, but it's a far cry from what Russia wishes it could do.
The options you're mentioning - poison gas on civilian cities? nuclear weapons? - are the kind of thing that would likely lead to direct NATO intervention. Nothing's impossible, but the things you're proposing are very unlikely.
Ok I’ll ask you too: what part of mutually assured destruction do you not understand, and why do you think direct NATO involvement would not trigger direct Russian aggression against western cities and armies?
You are overstating "mutually assured destruction (MAD)." Things have changed since Joshua won in War Games. NATO military leaders no longer believe any of those three words accurately describe the exchange of nuclear weapons between NATO and Russia. Russia knows they don't either, and they know which side survives (and survives quite well), so they now periodically threaten to launch nuclear weapons at the west ("I'm not bluffing!") hoping to keep MAD doctrine in the minds of the NATO.
The Russian nuclear threats are needless, although Russia is too stupid and paranoid to realize it, because NATO will NEVER use nuclear weapons unless Russia does first, and even then NATO won't use nuclear weapons unless Russia does so first AND in specific instances, places and quantity.
