Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

213

Reading this just now is the first time I have felt legitimate concern that this will escalate into war between the United States and Russia. Russia gave a very clear and precise warning that if we directly Interfered we would face repercussions like never before in the history of our country. The United States admitting that we were involved in the sinking of that ship is us calling his bluff. This seems like a terribly reckless thing to do.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. What do you expect to happen going forward?

The seems like a very big story, a line was just crossed.

Reading this just now is the first time I have felt legitimate concern that this will escalate into war between the United States and Russia. Russia gave a very clear and precise warning that if we directly Interfered we would face repercussions like never before in the history of our country. The United States admitting that we were involved in the sinking of that ship is us calling his bluff. This seems like a terribly reckless thing to do. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. What do you expect to happen going forward? The seems like a very big story, a line was just crossed.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (22).
[–] • 9 pts

It's funny that there are people who think Russia is weak. They just haven't been going all in. They didn't need to. They specifically laid down their mission and people tried pushing for war saying that Russia actually wants to take all of Ukraine and even then even more of Europe. In effect, because we keep sending in more and more money and weapons, this will force Russia to start bombarding Ukraine in a full out war. NATO and the West will hang that carrot out there for Russia to take. Once they do, you'll hear the "I told you so's" from NATO and then it'll seem like NATO is retaliating instead of starting a war. The normies and warhawks will all agree.

[–] • 7 pts

Russia could destroy Ukraine in one afternoon if that was the goal.

[–] • 0 pt

That is an absolutely retarded statement unless by "destroy" you mean "nuke with no regard for the consequences of using nukes". You'd need Olympic-level mental gymnastics to honestly believe that a country would prefer losing large numbers of their troops and heavily damaging their economy to drag a out a conflict over weeks and even months instead of just steamrolling the enemy in less than a day.

[–] • 2 pts

"Destroy" is fairly ambiguous. Russia could do a LOT more with conventional weapons if they wanted to actually hurt Ukrainians. As a random example, all their rail lines, roads, power stations, water stations, etc etc etc, are all still up and working. It wouldn't take nukes for Russia to destroy it all, and it's only because this isn't an actual war that any of those things are still working.

There is a massive difference between trying to remove a political group vs actually "destroying" a country. Your argument mostly just makes you look like the retard here. Did the US need nukes to destroy Iraq or Libya, or do you think Libya is doing fine and dandy?

[–] • 1 pt

They do not want to destroy their enemy in a day, that is not the goal. The only thing that would do is make it difficult to control after the war. The objective here is not land. It is winning the population over.

[–] • 0 pt

They could easily destroy Ukraine in one afternoon without nukes. They could bombard with non-nuclear warheads.

[–] • 0 pt

The whole annexation of Crimea and war in Donbass would have been avoided if the US didnt topple the Ukranianian government in 2014. The war in its current form could have been avoided if the EU and US would have told Ukraine no we cant send in our oil companies to get your natural gas, just call Russia have them do it.