Comments by "" (@titteryenot4524) on "Russia warns Lithuania of ‘serious’ consequences over rail blockade" video.

  1. I imagine that if it ever got to the stage where NATO actually threw a punch, it would knock-out Russia in the First Round.
    58
  2.  @sohailrazaque9785  Yes, you could be.
    23
  3. No! Not another ‘it’s a blah, blah, blah, operation’ joke!
    16
  4.  @sohailrazaque9785  You’ve no idea who I am or what I watch, so stop with the baseless assumptions. Conventional NATO forces are at least 10 times more powerful than Russian forces. At least. Nukes obviously complicate things and I’m not advocating an aggressive hot NATO war with Russia; was just making the point that if we hadn’t split the atom then this thing would’ve been resolved months ago, and not resolved in a good way for the Russians.
    12
  5.  @balthiersgirl2658  You been at the vodka again? 🥴
    11
  6. That’s no way to talk of Boris Johnson.
    10
  7. Go and live there then, and see if you like it then.👍
    8
  8.  @sohailrazaque9785  Jesus! Can you even read? All through this thread I’ve been caveating my comments in terms of conventional war. Go away. Stop wasting my time.
    5
  9.  @geraldfindon827  Territory’s different in Afghanistan. Fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan is like fighting against rats in the sewers of New York. You might trap a few, but they are going to dodge you for the most part, due to home advantage in a very intricate territory. Former USSR knows all about this terrain to its cost. Russia itself, however, is a sitting duck compared to this.
    5
  10. Oh, the irony of someone called ‘EnglishForYa’ writing a barely-literate piece of gobbledygook.
    4
  11.  @Cyrano1971  Article 5 obliges all other NATO countries to get involved if one of them is attacked. Deal with it.
    3
  12.  @fredyaghooti813  Can we have that in English, please?
    3
  13. It’s a truth universally acknowledged that those who type in Caps Lock FOR NO APPARENT REASON, invariably type garbage.
    3
  14. Is that a euphemism?😳
    3
  15. Thanks for that, Kermit.
    2
  16.  @puta6688  Well, there is the nuclear threat. My point is quite simple: in a conventional conflagration, Russia would be crushed like a ripe grape in a jiffy.
    2
  17.  @puta6688  Take nukes out, and Russia would be incinerated in a fortnight. It’s the school bully who picked on the much weaker kid, because it’s a coward. Let it mess with the big boys and it will get a proper lesson.
    2
  18. @fangurl33 Oh no, fangurl, don’t agree with me! I’m with Oscar Wilde when he said: “🤨Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong!”
    2
  19.  @hypocrisyrules3768  Look, mate. I’m aware of all this. Read my thread; it’s constantly caveated by the idea that NATO could flatten Russia in the conventional sense. If NATO goes into a hot war directly with Russia, then of course it’s quite likely Putin will spark a few nukes. We all get that.
    2
  20. How do you know I’m, ahem, ‘big’?😳
    2
  21. @jim rogers No! Stop them at source! They are tedious and unimaginative in the extreme at this point.
    2
  22. @jim rogers You need to get out more, Jimbo, sonny.
    2
  23.  @tryingtocorrect  Mad with reading all these tired, samey, samey, gags.
    2
  24. Since when did Putin get the Arsenal job?😳
    2
  25.  @carnaud  👍
    2
  26.  @hypocrisyrules3768  Afghanistan territory completely different to Russian territory, as the Soviets themselves found out to their cost back in the 80s. And NATO haven’t already stopped Russia precisely because of the existence of nukes; along with the idea that it’s a bit of a proxy war at this point and it perfectly suits NATO to allow Ukraine to be used as a punchbag for Russia, whilst simultaneously weakening the Russians, so that if NATO does step in at any point, then it will be dealing with a severely weakened Russia, in the conventional military sense.
    1