Realistically, once someone joins NATO, Russia no longer needs to consider them a risk.
So long as Finland was independent, it still had the option to go capture some Russian territory.
Even if they all fail, we’ll still launch our nukes before we’ve had time to figure that out. And they won’t all fail.
Higher losses than I originally thought.
That will happen when the artillery is already dialed in. Smash the targets before they can take cover.
Russia: It’s just a flesh wound.
[kick]
Finland: Look, stop that.
Russia: Chicken!
[kick]
Chickennn!
Finland: Look, I’ll have your army.
[kick]
Right!
[whop]
[Finland blows up the remainder of Russia’s tanks]
Russia: Right. I’ll do you for that!
Finland: You’ll what?
Russia: Come here!
Finland: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
Russia: I’m invincible!
Finland: You’re a looney. You have no tanks left!
Russia: The Glorious Russian Motherland always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then.
Finland: Right! Blows up remainder of Russian army
Yeah, I’m not really worried, and the Russian threats were basically nothing new. Still, the gall of it makes my gall boil.
How long ago does something have to happen to be “infamous”?
Russian Defense Ministry denied reports of fascist action deep in liberated Donbass territory.
“Reports of enemy activity against one of our heroic tanks are a complete lie. Preliminary investigation points to a soldier smoking.”
!!UPDATE!! “Bad wiring.”
!!UPDATE!! "Video was a test of our new, never seen before superoruzhie (‘super weapons’) designed to down low flying aircraft and drones of NATO and their stooges. Our beloved leader, Vladimir Putin boasted Thursday of this new weaponry that will render NATO defenses “completely useless.”
Last two words correct anyway.
I think “frying pan fire” would be more plausible.
“Our tanks are brave children of the Motherland. Our soldiers…eh.”
Is that superior to Dear Leader?
Should be “Fearless Leader.”
I am pretty sure there have been nuclear weapons pointed at various points in Finland since the 1950’s. So… nothing really new on that count?
Russia is trying to force people to choose a side. No doubt it is frustrating to the Kremlin that everyone seems to be choosing the NATO side.
That does not seem to be how Russia views the situation.
Franklin Roosevelt called Dec. 7 1941 a “date which will live in infamy” on Dec. 8 1941.
Likewise, Russian soldiers didn’t take over Crimea in 2014, the Russian army was on a training mission in January of this year, and Br’er Rabbit definitely doesn’t want to be thrown in that there briar patch.
In general, I wouldn’t take the voiced statements of the Russian government as a solid interpretation of their stance on everything.
Russia started the process to join NATO as a member before Ukraine did, and was still trying until they got kicked out for Crimea. It’s reasonable to say that they have no particular reason to think that NATO is a group that’s fundamentally antagonistic to Russia and I think we can feel confident that they’ve long given up on ever owning Finland again, in Putin’s lifetime.
This site shows a live tracker of Russia’s military strengths and losses, however I’m not sure I accept the idea that Russian personnel is down to 57% of it’s size.
Sounds like there’s reporting that Ukrainian forces have driven Russians clear back to the border north of Kharkiv
Ukrainian Troops Appear To Have Fought All The Way To The Russian Border (msn.com)
Yeah, I find that chart a little suspect. Looks like more positive-spin propaganda, which is to be expected. Both sides exaggerate enemy losses.
Does anyone have a TO&E for a Russian battalion battle group?
This brings up an interesting question. How should Ukrainian forces respond if the Russian forces attack from within Russian territory? Limit themselves to artillery strikes against those targets? Pull back out of range in hopes of luring the attacking forces onto Ukrainian soil? Send ground forces into Russia in a limited capacity to deal with the attacking forces and then return to Ukraine?
You can try this discussion