Right now we're pretending to not know the difference between old Soviet junk and modern tanks? But please entertain us with your version of why NATO is not sending modern tanks to UA? Perhaps they're too busy playing Dota? Or requests just keep getting lost? Or they can send millions of 155mm shells but logistics to send tanks are just too hard? Or they're secret RU Orcs too?
It's the same old Soviet junk that Russia is planning to win the war with, or better. I still don't know why you're so obsessed with tanks - or only specific brands of tanks - as if that constitutes a worse threat to Russia than e.g. HIMARS, but Russia already lost a shitload of tanks (being captured or destroyed by Ukraine) and can't make anymore, so it doesn't really take a math genius to see where the balance shifting.
Sure let's extend all this effort for a high probability of a worse outcome? Worked so great in Afghanistan and Libya right?
I think you've missed the point. There is no "good" outcome. Let's say Putin takes Ukraine. Then he wants Poland. The whole thing starts over, just much worse.
Right how mobilized Russians with previous combat experience could possibly compare with super mega ultra warrior conscripts of Ukraine and super sober uber special forces of the 8th? mobilization wave of Ukraine? 
Not the best of your straw people. I'm talking about the Russian forces.
The 200k invasion army was supposedly better trained and better equipped and had other advantages like robust air support and still functioning supply lines. What happened to those soldiers? No one cares, let's throw another 300k into it, just with less of everything, and see how that works out. Maybe shift some generals around, yeah, that'll do it.
Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that tanks have consistently been the top request from UA, which so far has been ignored by US/EU? Oh we can't have them? Well, then we never wanted them anyway
Sure, powers will always want to expand their spheres of influence, Russia might want Mexico but just like US wanting Ukraine, doesn't mean they should get it. (And that's the reason why China's claims on Taiwan are inevitable and only a function of time. No first world power would tolerate 2nd world power in their backyard from across the globe [see Cuba]) And if Russia is depleting they military reserves by sending them to Mexico i'd be in here arguing that Russia has no business using Mexico as their proxy, and you can be sure that US would be talking about nukes 24/7 [again see Cuba] . As far as i'm aware there are no regions in Poland where majority speak Russian language and consistently votes for pro-Putin president. Now if there were (widely accepted) elections and a pro Russian president would be elected, only to be removed in a coup with US freedom cookies, than things might be different. But as usual you're conveniently trying to compare UA to a NATO country. Pretty sure EU would be ecstatic to see things go back as they were in 2013, growing GDP, high and improving standards of living, fast-track visas with Russia with discussion of visa-free entries, access to cheap Russian resources which lets them stay competitive with China/India/US, and discussions about expanding RU resource deliveries and approving NordStream2 securing competitiveness for years to come doesn't sound like too bad of the outcome? Surely you must realize the reason for all those guaranteed buy back clauses when companies leave Russia always have to leave the door open, just in case
Last i checked almost 1000km line of engagement still stands with RU even making some progress in some sections, surely someone is manning it or who is UA fighting against there currently? But to your point, obviously in almost 8 months of fighting both sides have lost a lot of their best units, only UA side lost a lot of its conscripts and mobilized force as well, where Russia just started to mobilize. You can pretend that mobilized UA forces of the Xth wave are somehow more "sober" or elite than the first mobilized wave of RU soldiers but that's just amusing propaganda to anyone with a brain cell.
Right now we're pretending to not know the difference between old Soviet junk and modern tanks? But please entertain us with your version of why NATO is not sending modern tanks to UA? Perhaps they're too busy playing Dota? Or requests just keep getting lost? Or they can send millions of 155mm shells but logistics to send tanks are just too hard? Or they're secret RU Orcs too?
It's the same old Soviet junk that Russia is planning to win the war with, or better. I still don't know why you're so obsessed with tanks - or only specific brands of tanks - as if that constitutes a worse threat to Russia than e.g. HIMARS, but Russia already lost a shitload of tanks (being captured or destroyed by Ukraine) and can't make anymore, so it doesn't really take a math genius to see where the balance shifting.
Sure let's extend all this effort for a high probability of a worse outcome? Worked so great in Afghanistan and Libya right?
I think you've missed the point. There is no "good" outcome. Let's say Putin takes Ukraine. Then he wants Poland. The whole thing starts over, just much worse.
Right how mobilized Russians with previous combat experience could possibly compare with super mega ultra warrior conscripts of Ukraine and super sober uber special forces of the 8th? mobilization wave of Ukraine?
Not the best of your straw people. I'm talking about the Russian forces.
The 200k invasion army was supposedly better trained and better equipped and had other advantages like robust air support and still functioning supply lines. What happened to those soldiers? No one cares, let's throw another 300k into it, just with less of everything, and see how that works out. Maybe shift some generals around, yeah, that'll do it.
Pretty much spot on. He takes Crimea, then Easter Ukraine and the Fakepublics of the Dombas, then a corridor to the Fakepublic of Transnistria, they liberating the oppressed Russian living un Hungary, then a corridor to Konigsberg, ... From the European perspective, this has to end here and now. From the Ukrainian perspective, they do not want to be drafted as slaves, not having to survive the next Holodomor nor be the buffer for Putin's aggressions. And believe that some of the fighters in Ukraine speak well of the Commies, so Adolf Putin must have gotten something really wrong here.
Regarding soviet equipment, some people say that it is running thin, my personal take is that there is still a lot of rusty old iron. It is not fit for a modern war, but it kills when used and they do have a shitload of it. The issue is if in modern RF there is still space for a forceful recruiting of an army of slaves - Adolf Putin may have gotten that wrong too.
Slippery slope argument Haha this is a good spin, NATO playing a victim card, original! Russia is down to bare bones of RU speaking Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. So if NATO doesn't expand to these countries right now that would be a gateway to RU taking over Ireland or Canada next!
are we hoping that no one here has mental capacity to remember 2013 when UA had a pro RU president and that Transnistria has been with RU since 1990s and no one cared for that anymore than for Belarus president being the last European dictator ...In a nuclear war there is no winner. The first strike is guaranteed to be followed by a response (it could even not be a nuke, but certainly proportional and devastating)... and from there nobody knows...
Can we stop pretending that instead of protecting its members NATO countries signed up to start a nuclear Armageddon for any tactical nuclear blast in any country around the globe? I realize that that's what UA has been desperately asking for but literally no NATO general or leader of ANY NATO country agreed to anything close to that. That's not how article 5 works
RU nuke attack in UA != RU nuke attack on NATO
Edit: I'm not saying RU should nuke UA, and i'm against all nuke attacks, but distinction must be made
...
False, a response to a nuclear attack does not necessarily have to be nuclear, that has been stated over an over. It has been described as "devastating" but most likely conventional. The ICBMs are not the only nuclear option and the nuclear response is not only not the only option, it is not even the best to achieve a deterrent for tactical nukes from Russia. Do you know that the tactical nuke arsenal in US is barely 200 units, like 10 times less than RF's?
At the risk of repeating myself, I am going to quote my post. Notice that it is PREVIOUS to the Kerch bridge being destroyed.
The scenarios being considered are not around the ICBMs,
...
Please notice that "effective" and "efficient" in this context means that they can blast expensive and critical target with precision and certainty.
I am sure you can add 1+1
Sure, is a strongly worded condemnation, and another batch of sanctions against Putin's dogs would be any less devastating than any previous devastating batches of sanctions?
March 10, 2022
Quote
Russia’s economy will be ‘devastated’ by sanctions and further sanctions are under consideration, Janet Yellen says
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/economy/sanctions-russia-janet-yellen/index.htmlThat's cause tactical nukes are pretty useless just as their large scale alternatives, if we ever find ourselves in a position where 10 tactical nukes are not enough for either side we all already lost. And don't fool yourself if US is openly blasting expensive and critical RU targets humanity has already lost as well, small undercover games will continue from both sides just as they have been for many years prior.