Biden is a lame duck president with NO PUBLIC MANDATE and subterranean approval rating, he got ousted by his own party before the election for being mentally incapacitated, his defense against a Justice Department inquiry is he’s too old and senile, his party just got BTFO in a national election. No NATO or NATO proxies have ever launched long range missiles into Russia in living memory. How is this guy 
fit for office
STOP EATING CRAYONS AND DO YOUR FUCKING JERB. “Senile old man sends young people to WW3 out of spite”
congress is doing its job: making money off of military company insider trading
Removed by mod
now with added North Korean soldiers sent by their dictator
-
Kim Jong Un is not a dictator. Again you show that you have no clue. Just vibes.
-
No statement by the DPRK or Russia regarding the matter. You base your assessment on rumors spread by the ukrainian government. The ones who made up the Ghost of Kiev. Told the world that the seperatists were shelling themselves. That Russia shelled itself in a nuclear plant. That Russia had lost 500000 soldiers and was sending in human waves armed with shovels.
You never stopped and thought: “Wait, that is not a reliable source!”
Western press told you that was the truth, so you took their word for it. Because when was the last time the west lied? Aside from Iraq, Lybia, Syria, Xinjiang region, Vietnam, Korea, the USSR, China in general, Communism in general, Ukraine, Palestine, etc.
Removed by mod
Bush and Trudeau confirmed dictators.
-
Dafuq, are you unwell?claims that firing ballistic missiles somehow escalates this conflict aren’t well thought out
It escalates the conflict because under Russian law it puts Russia directly at war with NATO and opens up more spheres of conflict. The Russians will most certainly retaliate, likely by sending weapons to anti-western groups.
without World War 3 breaking out
Yes, I doubt this will on its own cause ww3. But playing with fire is dangerous either way.
they’ve been firing those at high value targets in Russia from day one of getting invaded
Russia is already at ear with Ukraine. The Ukrainians firing at Russia with their own weapons is thus not an escalation.
since Russia is still attempting to conquer Ukraine
No it is not and it never was. Everybody knew from day 1 that conquering and holding to all of Ukraine would be infeasible and the war was actually about NATO expansion.
North Korean soldiers sent by their dictator
Pure ideology. Just speculation. It wouldn’t even be an escalation if this were happening because the western fascists have been sending over their mercenaries and troops to Ukraine for the past 10 years.
Removed by mod
I find that doubtful. They went for Kyiv during the first month of war. If you go for the largest city and the capital, that typically is a conquest.
Yes they went for Kiev to topple the government of Ukraine and force a quick surrender, as has been their stated aim. It does not mean there would be any possibility of conquering Ukraine and holding it by the Russians.
The prevailing opinion seems to be that Ukraine was attacked by Russia in 2022 and before that, parts of Ukraine were seized by Russia in 2014.
You appear to be forgetting about the maidan coup, the shelling of donbass and the arming of Ukraine by nato, all of which the Russians have said threaten their national security since Ukraine is literally at their border.
imaginary bunch of “western fascists”.
Y’all are commiting a livestreamed genocide in gaza and have slaughtered tens of millions of people at the altars of capitalism since the end of ww2. No need to imagine western fascism.
hard boiled imperialist
When will liberals learn what imperialism is? When we say “we oppose imperialism” we mean that we want to destroy the transnational system of capitalist superexploitation of the world’s natural resources and labour by a handful of “first world” nations. Not “we want to reify nations and nation states”.
He decided that Ukraine must be under Russia’s control.
As opposed to the Americans, who don’t want Ukraine under American control, who haven’t been buying up Ukrainian capital assets for dirt cheap for 30 years now.
The revolution which Yanukovich accidentally provoked was inconvenient to him, so he decided to start military action. Seeing that the West was using toothless sanctions and harsh words, he decided to go all in - but miscalculated. His yes-men said they could do it, but they couldn’t.
I bet my left testicle on you not having read even a single word that came out of the mouth of any member of the Russian leadership and instead just making up all of this headcannon and fan fiction based on nothing.
Removed by mod
If you really want to know - when Hamas attacked Israel, I said that Israel has the right to defend itself.
Thanks for just admitting you are a stupid as shit liberal with terrible intuition and analysis. Ever considered listening to us as we were correct the entire time and never got duped into supporting imperialist genocide?
Maidan revolution
A revolution from capitalist neocolony to capitalist neocolony?
Imperialism… is conquering and dominating foreign lands and assembling empires.
Assembling empires is the only correct part of your definition, because it happens to be a tautological statement. How can you be an anarchist and use this definition of imperialism, since all states by definition dominate territory? “Foreign” and “domestic” are purely artificial categories and using them only legitimates statist ideology.
The president of Ukraine fled to Russia but the parliament remained in place, and provided a way of triggering new presidential elections. By that time, Russian troops had taken control of Crimea
The Russian annexation of crimea happened after the president fled, as a response to the coup.
Putin declared Crimea to be part of Russia and stated that he’d never give it back
This was done via referendum. As for the rest of your comment, it is mostly just a run down of the specific events leading up to the war, ignoring the geopolitical reasons for why the different actors took the actions they did, instead looking at the events in a vacuum.
If you really want to know - when Hamas attacked Israel, I said that Israel has the right to defend itself.
Am I right to assume that the previous 70 years of Israeli settler colonialism had no impact on your opinion of how much Israel has a “right to defend itself”?
they have a right to repel the invaders, and this incldues the right to strike across borders at the invader’s command, logistics, storage and production.
Which they were already doing with their own weapons and soldiers. The escalation in question is about the use of American weapons, which will likely trigger some kind of (probably not nuclear) response from the Russians, who have the possibility of sending weapons to anti-western militant groups, or to take other actions.
I’m an anarchist.
So you have no clue.
If you really want to know - when Hamas attacked Israel, I said that Israel has the right to defend itself. When Israel started bombing civilians, created a famine in Gaza and destroyed their infrastructure, I said: that’s no longer self defense.
See, you have absolutely no clue about anything. Just going with the recent thing, no attempt of learning history. This did not start last year. it started over 70 years ago, by what would become the zionist entity. But that seems too long for you to look into, so you rather tell the ones affected by ethnic cleansing and genocide how they should resist. Can’t have the brown people make you feel bad, after all!
Just vibes based politics.
There is no “right to defend itself” for occupation forces. There is however the right to resist occupation. Your vibes based analysis lead you to the literal opposite of reality.
Removed by mod
How many years have you lived in the USSR? I have lived there from 1980 to 1991 - until it fell apart.
Given your comments up and down the thread and your username, you must have been one of the liberals infesting the place leading to it’s ultimate demise. I hope Cucktin serves you a tasty cup of polonium tea and pushes you out of a window before he also rolls over and dies because he’s also a filthy lib.
Who cares.
It’s a weapon that Ukraine has, they’re at war, it’s not a nuke, it ethically doesn’t matter whether they made it themselves or received it as a gift*, of course they’re going to shoot it at a target in the country that destroyed their infrastructure and turned part of their countryside into a no-man’s-land and is occupying places they lived just 3 years ago.
If you wanna get mad at American weapons being used overseas in illegal wars, there are plenty being dropped on defenseless people, out of Israeli aircraft, every single day.
The weapons require command and control by NATO personnel, and guidance by NATO satellites. NATO is actively participating in an attack on Russian soil, using Ukraine as a buffer. This is a massive deal for anyone that does not want to die in nuclear hellfire. Russia has responded to this escalation by unveiling a previously not known to exist Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) weapon, in an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile called “Oreshnik”, with Multiple Re-entry Vehicle and/or cluster warheads that can strike all of Europe, striking a weapons factory in Ukraine with this weapon yesterday. Again, this is a big deal for anyone that does not want to live in Posadas’ version of the future.
deleted by creator
Ukraine isn’t using it, American personnel are. This is America shooting missiles directly at Russia, qualitatively changing the conflict from a proxy war to a direct war.
Ukraine isn’t using it, American personnel are. This is America shooting missiles directly at Russia, qualitatively changing the conflict from a proxy war to a direct war.
Copying this out because you’re known to move the goalposts and ignore anytime it gets pointed out.
Ukrainian military personnel are not firing the missiles? American personnel deployed in Ukraine are? Or are American personnel firing the rockets from a NATO base? Either way, you’re saying that the article and its details are a total fabrication- no “authorization” would need to be given to Ukraine if it were American personnel firing the rockets.
Yes American personnel are the only ones who can operate this technology. It is Joe Biden pushing the button to launch a close range missile strike into Russia. Sorry you love imperialists so much you refuse to accurately describe them, but that’s a you problem.
NATO personnel are also operating Patriot SAMs and other NATO equipment throughout Ukraine. If you doubt this you are beyond naive
Removed by mod
The reason this is a big deal is because Russia is the 3rd biggest military in the world, and Ukraine would not be able to strike Russian territory with long range missiles unless the USA intervened. This creates a potential casus belli between Russia and the USA and if Russia chooses to ignore it then it sets the conditions for additional escalation of the threat against Russian national security. It’s not a moral issue.
If you see a problem with a country being able to respond, in kind, to attacks by a state actor against it, then you do not stand for emancipation or egalitarianism.
(Yes, I know history didn’t start in 2022. There is an undeniable discontinuous shift in the nature of the conflict at that point though.)
Russia has been fully aware of the dynamics of supply between Ukraine and the USA, all along. Nothing has changed besides rockets that can go somewhat farther. If it’s not a nuke and not a military alliance, it doesn’t draw more powers in, it just makes the war more costly.
When one does a special military operation on another country’s undisputed territory, one accepts that there might be a counter-operation.
If you see a problem with a country being able to respond, in kind, to attacks by a state actor against it, then you do not stand for emancipation or egalitarianism.
States. Do. Not. Have. Rights. This should go without saying on this site. The actions of the gov’t of Ukraine, or more relevantly of the United States in support of Ukraine, are justified only insofar as they are beneficial to actual human beings. Risking escalation here pretty clearly fails that criterion. The situation on the ground right now is that the front has been largely stagnant for 2 years, and the incoming US admin has little appetite for continuing the conflict. This is an opportunity for a negotiated end to the war, not a time to be blowing things up even further. This isn’t “emancipating” Ukrainians, it’s just extending death and destruction in a moment where there’s a real path towards winding it down.
When one does a special military operation on another country’s undisputed territory, one accepts that there might be a counter-operation.
Sure, and if we’re fortunate, the Russians have accepted that possibility and will get over it. On the other hand, by sending American missiles to be fired on another country’s undisputed territory, America accepts that there might be a counter-operation. Do you trust either Biden or Trump to be the adult in the room and accept that if Russia starts using it as justification for attacks on Americans?
it’s just extending death and destruction in a moment where there’s a real path towards winding it down.
I totally agree: it’s disappointing and ill-advised, but not unprecedented.
On the other hand, by sending American missiles to be fired on another country’s undisputed territory, America accepts that there might be a counter-operation. Do you trust either Biden or Trump to be the adult in the room and accept that if Russia starts using it as justification for attacks on Americans?
If Ansar Allah shot a Russian-made missile at the US (or even at Camp Lemonnier) that would be funny and righteous.
You are ignoring that this is proxy war, and by so doing you are confusing the entire perspective.
If this was not a proxy war, Russia would invade Ukraine because Ukraine took unilateral action to threaten Russia’s national security.
In such a situation, the USA would not be sending the equivalent of the entire Russian military budget to Ukraine. Russia would stop Ukraine from its unilateral action and the war would end.
Instead, we have the US acting through NATO acting through Ukraine threatening Russian national security. Russia attacks Ukraine not because of Ukraine’s unilateral action but because of the actions of the USA through Ukraine as a proxy. This proxy war remains a proxy war so long as the USA does not act against Russia directly. If the USA acts against Russia directly it becomes a direct military conflict between Russia and the USA.
The USA is salami slicing this conflict, attempting to find the point at which it can no longer the escalate the threat to Russia without Russian retaliation.
Ukrainian emancipation was truncated by the right-wing color revolution that was managed by the USA. Russia’s invasion has nothing to do with Ukrainian sovereignty and everything to do with Ukraine being a proxy of the West.
The game of chicken was inherent since January 2022, arguably even before. Ukraine as a state outside of either regional defense treaty and situated in between both has pointed towards increasing involvement/meddling of the regional powers.
A war being in progress involving a country from one bloc is an opening for the other bloc to conduct indirect opposition. This was known from the start of the SMO, and arguably accounted for from the same time too.
A few missiles hitting a depot in Bryansk is not going to change the course of the war. If it was going to, you’d expect that the USA would have encouraged this to be done sooner. It hasn’t broken any continuity woth the rest of the conflict, and isn’t going to change much besides maybe a proportionally tiny amount more of destruction on the Russian side of the border. That was my point.
“Both the imperialists and anti-imperialists are bad! If you don’t like escalating imperialism then why do you support anti-imperialists??!”
I’m so tired of you western chauvinists in leftoid clothing
The modern Holocaust the US government is committing in Gaza doesn’t have anything to do with whether the Banderite neonazi regime they installed in Ukraine is bad.
Before this war kicked off properly they were regularly shelling and sending Nazi death squads after civilians, why would you not be mad at that? Why would you want them to be able to remotely bomb civilians in Russia?
Posting any Russia related news outside the news mega really brings out all the chauvinist shitheads on this site don’t it?
Don’t you have a cave to crawl back to from last year or so, where you can celebrate bloodshed of civilians without contagion?
Talk about bad faith. whatever you need to tel yourself as you fail your revolutionary defeatism and fall into imperialist intrigue
It just falls into the rest of the umbrella of “war is war” to me. There’s nothing wrong with a war being two-sided.
Ukrainians are already the victims of weapons like this. Russian authorities have already targeted apartment buildings and other civilian targets, including knocking out water and electricity for millions. Half or more of the Ukrainian people are going to be plunged into poverty for decades, because of geopolical forces they can’t control.
Sure, defending the Donbass is good. But that doesn’t make this a black-and-white conflict, and certainly doesn’t mean 20 million people should suffer because the pro-peace candidate they supported (cf. Poroshenko) was twisted onto the warpath.
So your response is to support the actions of the imperialists? This is where you ultras always go fully off the rails. You get so wrapped up in your purity you somehow manage to spin it around to support the US again, what a coincidence
I’m not supporting the actions of the imperialists, I’m downplaying how important they are and how big of a deal should be made of them.
It would be foolish to believe that weapons transfer was not part of the calculation.
Social chauvinist
should’ve not killed civilians in Donbass
Removed by mod
Ok
Pretty bold to openly call for ethnic cleansing in the Donbass, Adolf
Donbass would’ve been better if Gorbashev and Yeltsin were hanged
also mf how does a separatist occupy their land? that doesn’t make sense
They would’ve been better off if the Nazi-led Ukraine coup hadn’t happened in 2014.
That has the same energy as “they shouldn’t have voted for Trump”.
Collective punishment is bad but if it’s going to happen, it’s better for it to not be unilateral. Plus, it’s unlikely that Ukraine uses the weapons on anything other than a strategically useful military target.
Your dipshittery here is going off the charts
Plus, it’s unlikely that Ukraine uses the weapons on anything other than a strategically useful military target.
Ukronazi regime in fact uses every weapon they can, even the scarce and expensive missiles for terror attacks on civilians, and every future weapon they will get will be also used in the same way. Plenty of examples here and here.
@[email protected] @[email protected]
Fyi you two have both reported each other recently. I don’t have the energy to sift through your threads and come up with some judgement of who is right or wrong, but I welcome others to do so.
In the meantime, take the fact that both of you are reporting one another as a sign to disengage.
I’m eager to hear what rule or part of the CoC I was being reported for, or whether it was just for wrongthink.
In full disclosure I asserted that a blanket categorization of Ukrainians as Nazis was racist.
I hope you get banned for wrongthink wrongthinker
I’ll give you a hint, it’s the pro-imperialist ultra who is wrong and the anti-imperialist commie who is right
Collective punishment is bad
Yeah, agreed
but if it’s going to happen, it’s better for it to not be unilateral.
Are you saying it would be better if multiple parties decided which groups should be collectively punished, or that it’s better for Russian civilians to suffer collective punishment than for them not to because of collateral damage during the current war between Russia and Ukraine?
Plus, it’s unlikely that Ukraine uses the weapons on anything other than a strategically useful military target.
What would possibly make you feel this way?
I’m saying “Russia gets to strike Ukrainian targets but Ukraine doesn’t get to strike Russian targets” is not only unfair but laughable. They’re at war. They were escalated against first by a state actor.
Just because it’s in alignment towards the wrong side of history doesn’t mean we should revoke principles of international relations that deny special privileged status to any country.
There is ethically no further line being crossed by Ukraine in firing conventional missiles at Russia, when Russia has already fired hundreds of the same at Ukraine, regardless of whether or not the latter is construed as “defense”. When the missiles are flying, the people launching them have no right to say “but we’re off-limits”.
Okay, yeah so you’re saying that it’s better if Ukrainian Nazis are able to target Russian civilians more easily.
That is an absolutely bad-faith argument.
In the post-2022 stage of the war, Ukraine are not the aggressors. A blanket categorization of Ukrainians as “nazis” is no better than a blanket categorization of Russians as “orcs”. Sure, the state apparatus is vaguely aligned with NATO and the EU. That doesn’t mean that Ukrainians aren’t defending themselves now to some degree. The imposition of “we are invading and striking your country and you are not allowed to strike us back” is contradictory to the principles of multipolarity.
Afghanistan had the right to strike back at America. Iraq had the right to strike back at America. Ukraine has a qualified right to strike Russian military targets.
I don’t think all Ukrainians are Nazis, but their government and military are Nazi aligned, have deliberately targeted civilians repeatedly and will absolutely use these missiles to continue doing that.
It’s not better for them to be able to do so.
They also aren’t “vaguely” NATO aligned, they’re a NATO proxy.
If you wanna get mad at American weapons being used overseas in illegal wars, there are plenty being dropped on defenseless people, out of Israeli aircraft, every single day.
Porque no los dos?
Porque no cambiará casi nada en la guerra en Ucraina, el pueblo ruso ya puede defenderse, no creo que las fuerzas rusas tienen el derecho único u especial para lanzar bombas hacia ciudades y bases ucrainas.
You have to understand, Joe just really likes genocide and nuclear annihilation is the biggest genocide there is
Removed by mod
How do you people find your way here?
The fediverse can be confusing, especially for people brain damaged enough to be liberal.
Why would you oppose telling a neoliberal to eat shit?
A liberal who is ranting off topic about Putler is who you wanna go to bat to defend eh?
What would happen if in responce Russia blew up some trucks at an IDF base.
please god let this happen it would be so fucking funny
IF I’M GONNA GO I’M TAKING THE WHOLE WORLD WITH ME Andross from Star Fox is our president
This is like the assholes who made their guys fight to the last minute before the armistice in wwi
That was actually good, according to the very serious “anarchists” and “leftists” in this thread
“Since Biden is a lame duck and the Republicans are about to take control anyway, I sure wish he’d just use his power to solve global warming once and for all!”
Monkey’s Paw curls
If we have nuclear winter and wipe out humanity global warming will be solved
Sentinel Island Natives full on
Unfortunately they’re definitely fucked, there’s already been decades of overfishing in the Andaman Islands
I can’t even imagine what any of them are thinking. Many of them lived through the entire Nuclear age. I can only assume they’re so high on their own supply they just can’t imagine Washington disappearing in a flash of hot light and hard radiation.
They’re calling Russia’s bluff. That’s what they’re thinking. They’re betting Russia wouldn’t dare to escalate into a nuclear war, and they’d be right (most of the time), because no sane country would want that.
Russia won’t escalate to nuclear, but it will have to escalate, which is going to ruin the rest of Ukraine all for a chance of getting more intelligence on Russian capabilities.
small price to pay for the US. Not like anyone in Ukraine can complain. Not like any westerner ever sees anything about the consequences. Not like the lackeys “in charge” in Ukraine will say anything about it. The US will just pay off their most loyal puppets and move on to the next country to destroy.
How will Russia escalate further? They are already doing almost everything they can, including deploying troops in Ukraine from other countries like NK, and indiscriminate bombing of civilian centers in Ukraine.
Russia has no capability to escalate the war besides nukes, which they won’t use. It’s amusing y’all think this is a big deal, it’s not and nothing will happen. The US should have approved these strikes the minute we supplied the weapons in the first place.
Russia has 10x more personnel and equipment not being used in any way or form in this war. They can double the forces and go harder on the offensive.
Sources: Am in Russia, business is as usual for the most part.
Additional source: My nephews who boasted achieving best results in class at riffle re-assembly. Meaning that this soviet-era class is revived and that there is at least a couple dozen rifles in every single school across the country, being used as child’s toys.
EDIT: Fuck, it’s even worse than I expected — he just launched a motherfucking ICBM, that crazy old bastard.
Troops from DPRK have not been in Ukraine, they are only in Russia. They also don’t indiscriminately bomb civilian areas, that’s Ukraine. It’s clear you have gotten a distorted and biased stream of information on what this war has entailed. If Russia was so desperate, why are they winning on all fronts? What are you even talking about? Russia could easily flatten all of Kiev and Lviv overnight if they just carpet bombed them like you claim they do. That’s how Israel and the US fights, not Russia.
Russia slowly pushes an advance with artillery and only uses precise missile strikes on weapon depots, drone manufacturing, energy, oil depots, etc behind the front-lines. Civilians evacuate from these areas and they become grayzone in the frontlines, with monthlong artillery duels going on and pushes with a couple dozen armored vehicles. They use drones to attrition enemy supply lines.
None of this is “indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas” there’s always a military target.
Whereas Israel and the US just do indiscriminate air strikes taking out city blocks until the entire populated area is reduced to rubble. They did this throughout Asia and the Middle East. This kills tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians per month. The Russia-Ukrainian war has gone on 3+ years and has less civilian casualties than Israel’s recent massacres since Al Aqsa Flood which are 1/3 as old.
Hopefully they’ll provide Ansarallah with advanced weapons which will lead to very cool things happening in and around the red sea.
EDIT: or they could just start using non-nuclear weapons on NATO assets themselves
The red sea stuff would be interesting and a more realistic option, but they won’t strike NATO because NATO would easily wipe the floor with Russia.
Russia’s 3 day invasion has turned into a multi year disaster because they can’t fight against decade old NATO tech, they know they aren’t capable of besting NATO
We have already seen what a NATO vs. Russia war looks like, in Ukraine, and Russia won
xD NATOs multi decade old stock pile has exposed Russia as the worlds weakest ‘super power’
Other than Ukraine where Russia has gradually ground the UAF into dust when is the last time NATO equipment and tactics were used against a near peer?
All NATO troops know how to do is massacre civilians and bomb militias.
You think Russia is a peer to NATO? xD
In this hypothetical situation where NATO and Russia fight, I really don’t think much man-to-man combat would happen. It would all be advanced weapons systems and drones, which Russia is significantly behind (decades) NATO.
UAF has been ground in to dust but so has the Russian Armed Forces, at worst they are equally dust
Yeah well up until Russia stops being sane, like the gerontocratic West has. For example, by assassinating Putin and having someone far more extreme take power.
I don’t think we’re getting out of this one. This is the end of the line.
Well let’s see who will eventually win this bet: Biden or you.
Hate to say it but I genuinely suspect Biden might turn out to be right.
I fucking hope Biden is right considering what the alternative is.
Many of them lived through the entire Nuclear age.
That’s just it though, considering that they are the leaders of a giant death cult, many of them probably feel like they got shortchanged when the USSR fell without any nuclear armageddon, not even a little bit.
This could be Biden’s last chance for the Christmas he always really wanted.I’ve also wondered this. The generation that was promised they would all die in nuclear armageddon so they treated the planet and everyone and everything as if all life was going away anyway not being denied their just deserts.
This also makes the whole Huckabee choice much more foreboding…
I would be less worried if I lived in DC than if I lived in Poland or Germany or god-forbid Kiev. Ukraine manages to get a big bomb into Krusk and Russia retaliates with a fuck-off armed ballistic missile into one of those guys.
Can you fucking imagine?
Are they trying to escalate it so much that Trump can’t withdraw? Not that Trump would even get to decide one way or the other. Or that he even wants to.
Sorry but the Parliamentarian said no, so we’re getting WWIII.
they 25th him and Kamabla authorizes Israel to nuke Russia
Brat nuclear winter, baby!
Bro is beseeching the legislature 😭
we need to ban the usage of ‘WW3’
[this user supports Russia but does not think they’re gonna start firing off nukes anytime soon - happy to be proved wrong but I don’t think anyone on Hexbear.net has their eyes on Putin’s nuclear briefcase]
WW3 is not shorthand for nukes. It’s shorthand for multiple countries engaged in a simultaneous hot war on the basis of alliances and mutual escalation. Russia v Ukraine is not WW3. Russia v Ukraine and USA is the beginning of WW3. Russia and China and Iran v Ukraine and USA and Israel and UK and France and Germany is definitely WW3. No nukes required
yeah i’m aware of what would entail a ‘ww3’ scenario and that nukes aren’t shorthand for such - i still think we need to ban the usage of it and no i will not be elaborating
Is it Russia v Ukraine and the USA, if the USA is shipping mortars and 7.62 rounds to Ukraine?
There is no “missile nonproliferation treaty” to break, either.
Quick, how can I bend over backwards to normalize American imperialist warmongering?!?! The meany tankies are saying America bad
USA is salami slicing WW3
