So is the speculation about nukes. But Putin HAS invaded multiple countries - it's a consistent pattern of behavior and fits with everything people have been saying about him for a decade. On the flipside, he has not ever used nukes and he has never been seen as suicidal. No one is talking about invading Russia - they are talking about defending Ukraine. American and NATO weapons are already being used to attack Russian forces in Ukraine. You guys do realize Russia is struggling to defeat the Ukrainian air force right now, and it's the cause of all the failures of their attack plan, right? If Russia has this air mightiness, they'd be using it already. They planned to establish air superiority in day 1 or 2 of this. The fact that they can't suggests something is very wrong - lack of pilot training, lack of weaponry, lack of fuel, etc. Whatever it is, they've been unable to mobilize their airforce thus far and they've only been able to achieve air parity with Ukraine. They've been mostly dropped unguided dumb bombs instead of their advanced guided bombs and missiles and are losing jets and helicopters as result of having to fly lower to do that, which further suggests something is very wrong with their air force. And for what it's worth, in total, NATO has 20,000+ aircraft at its disposal vs 4000 for Russia - most of those on both sides are likely not available (they have to defend other things, can't be mobilized immediately, etc). And NATO would be flying over friendly skies where they can also set up anti-aircraft weaponry on the ground to help enforce it. Ukraine is mostly asking for no-fly zones for humanitarian purposes in the western part of Ukraine - essentially the corridor to Poland. Russia can't put up SAMs and other ground-based defenses in territory they don't control and they can't control it if they don't have control of the skies. Russia doesn't want NATO in this conflict, and if NATO sets up a limited no-fly zone, it's unlikely Russia will violate it. If they do, they will be shot down fairly easily. The reason NATO should do this now and not 6 years ago is that Russia's military wasn't the disaster it is now. And the reason NATO should do this now and not 2 years from now is that Russia won't make the same mistakes the next time. There is a one-time window of opportunity here that we don't know we'll have again.
NATO airspace is right next door too, and SAMs don't have any significant range. You can't fire a SAM from Russian territory into the heart of Ukraine. No one is talking about protecting 5 miles from the Russian border - they are talking about protecting the heart of Ukraine. You'd be flying over Ukrainian airspace. Russian SAMs in Russia are irrelevant.
Gone way up with civilian and foreigner joining the fight and influx of weapons from the West. Ukraine - Army Navy Air Force | budget, equipment, personnel (armedforces.eu)
I'm not going to bother looking at your post history, but there is a 105% chance that you **** all over Biden for pulling out of Afghanistan. And now you are ******** on him for interfering on Ukraine. Do you have a reason for being against one war and for another?
Some days I wish Trump would have won just so all his supporters would see the same gas prices, the same inflation, a possible worse situation in Ukraine.
If Putin pulled out of Ukraine now there would be no more war but sure, it's Hilary Clinton's fault for something something
