Comments by "irresistablejewel" (@irresistablejewel) on "European Leaders are Quickly Shifting their Positions" video.

The Anglo/French "Stormshadow" requires satellite data for guidance (provided by America); those launching these kind of sophisticated long-range missile systems would be NATO personnel; firing them at mainland Russia equates to a "first strike" (which is more than likely going to expand the Ukrainian conflict into a world war). Since America basically runs NATO; it's largely their decision, whether to fire long-range missiles at a nuclear superpower (who have vowed to retaliate). It should be mentioned that there is no known defense to the Russian (Mach 27) Avangard and possibly even their (Mach 10) Kinzhal. Careful what you wish for...
3
@haraldthi It is their satellites required for long-range missile guidance and who knows what Russia and China have up there? The arms industry don't seem to care what is done with their weapons... time they did!
2
Why? What's in it for them? I don't know about France, but the UK military has been cut back a lot. The assets of the corporations that moved into Ukraine have largely been destroyed; it's only the arms manufacturers profit margin that remains and they've other wars (with better returns); there's no profit to be made in Ukraine. Or did you actually think these countries care(d) about people? (with so many of theirs living on the streets).
2
@hgv1947 Well the "SMO" is limited; in that it's not been called a war and by the number of troops it's clearly not an attempt to conquer Europe (or even all of Ukraine).
1
@johnridout6540 Have no doubt, it's NATO technicians launching them; Storm-shadow is Anglo/French technology, but relies on American satellite data for guidance. After firing American long-range missiles at mainland Russia was first proposed; Russia conducted war games in the Caribbean Sea, with include a nuclear submarine. The Patriot surface-to-air system is no use against the Mach 10 Kinzhal (it moves too fast and doesn't fly in a "straight line"). It might be time to stop believing all these Ukrainian claims, if they had destroyed three times the tanks Russia ever had; they wouldn't keep needing our money. At least the Pentagon seems to understand a "first strike" on Russia must have a reply; which would undoubtedly expand the Ukrainian conflict and make all NATO member countries viable targets. Over a country like Ukraine?? It's not even in NATO.
1
@johnridout6540 Russia was firing Kinzhal missiles at things like electrical sub-stations (and a camp for foreign mercenaries after CNN disclosed it's location) likely more as a demonstration. The Patriot system usually fires three missiles (which have to land somewhere) I've no evidence of what's been destroyed, from any source I can say I really trust (The Ukrainian Ministry figures do seem rather "ambitious"). The West has provided a variety of weapons; things like the Patriot system and F-16's which are quite sophisticated (and use the English, or German, language); it's Russia's response to the proposed use of these weapons against mainland Russia that gives the game away (it's not Ukraine they're warning).
1
@hgv1947 Not half as pathetic as yours...
1
@haraldthi A lot of the destruction looks like the work of artillery; they leave a corridor for civilians to get out then reduce whole towns to rubble; while I don't think they do sacrifice troops, as the Ukraine ministry claims. In the first six months (I'm told) they gave the Wagner group a lot of prisoners serving life sentences (with some sort of amnesty deal) and I doubt they wanted them back in society; while if Ukraine had destroyed over nine thousand tanks I'd expect to see some pictorial evidence, while it looks (to me) like Russia's intention is to hold the (4) regions (mainly Russian speaking) that previously voted to leave Ukraine. Air launched glide bombs I doubt are that precise, but Russia has destroyed some targets with pin-point accuracy, even in the far West of Ukraine. I don't think we are getting an accurate description of what's really going on. It's been a chance for the arms industry to field test weaponry and clear out old stock; while I'm very much opposed to arming robots (Czech word for worker); because in every Sci-fi story I've read, this does not end well. Stories that Russia targets Ukrainian civilians I view with some skepticism (they're fellow Slavs); I don't really trust our media and it's time there was some accountability as it seems they've never seen a war they don't like. The thing I don't like is that civilians seem to pay for it all one way or another. While the ones most keen on war, have never been to war and won't be going... Direct conflict between superpowers is a very bad idea!!
1
@haraldthi Russia does have a lot of artillery (and troops); it's technologically driven (not debt driven) and has a centrally planned economy, I think the Pentagon has a fairly good appraisal of what they can do in response to a "first strike". I'm told in the first 6 months; they gave inmates with life sentences to a private mercenary company, with some amnesty deal (and I doubt they wanted them back in society). Otherwise I highly doubt Russia sacrifices troops in the way the Ukraine Ministry seems to be claiming, so I believe we are being handed a lot of bad info. I won't be going to fight for either side, while the main advocates for war: have never been to war; won't be going; while their media just seem to constantly stir up trouble (even between supporters of the two right-wing parties in America). Trump may get the blame, but those pushing for a world war must be mad; I'm very much opposed to arming robot drones, that's not progress.
1
The claims that a conversation took place are from unknown sources; while Dmitry Peskov is Russia's official spokesperson; so it's far more likely he's the honest one.
1
@kevindelaney1951 The UK hasn't got a leg to stand on. Not only did it cosign a neutrality agreement it didn't honour; due to cut-backs it's not in a position militarily or economically to go to war with Russia. While France has been told by the EU and NATO it's okay with them if France wants to go it alone; so don't hold your breath waiting for that. America has used both of them before to support it's interests; but since Russia has removed the profit margin, I guess Ukraine will have to figure things out itself. Russia doesn't need to go nuclear to respond to the UK, or France; the way things are going here, their own people are first in the queue in that respect. Enough "charity"!
1
@BendyLemmy I'd say give him a chance; The Donald should know how the swamp and the blob work having been there before; but we should keep in mind that he and America invariable act in their own interest (give'em an inch and they'll take a mile).
1