Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

If you really think, after their pathetic performance in Ukraine, Russias armed forces are a match for NATO I would suggest you are in Mr Lordo's "La la land"

I have no idea HOW you are able to evaluate NATO’s worth (presumably you meant the US as there really is no NATO but anyway) considering that we have yet to see them fight an enemy that can defend itself!

Can you bring to our attention a military engagement of this “NATO” that impressed you, because I’m seriously struggling!

[Londonrake]

If you really think, after their pathetic performance in Ukraine, Russias armed forces are a match for NATO I would suggest you are in Mr Lordo's "La la land"

I have no idea HOW you are able to evaluate NATO’s worth (presumably you meant the US as there really is no NATO but anyway) considering that we have yet to see them fight an enemy that can defend itself!

Can you bring to our attention a military engagement of this “NATO” that impressed you, because I’m seriously struggling!

Do the math.

Your own figures have shown that against lowly Ukraine, Russia has suffered a quarter of a million casualties at enormous cost. For comparison, in 9 years they lost about 14000 in Afghanistan. After which, the pressure from the likes of Mums was such they withdrew. Yet, you suggest NATO should tremble at the idea of confronting him. It's not going to happen though. Putin has made a lot of catastrophic mistakes but he's not that stupid. Give him my regards when you worship your bedroom picture of him tonight.

Fundamentally, NATO is a mutual defence organisation. The idea that it would invade Russia is total bollocks. Not that we should allow such ideas to interfere with Mr Putin's (propaganda) rationale.

I look forward to tomorrows "Today's good Russian news about their invasion of neighbouring Ukraine". 18 months after with (your figure) 250,000 casualties.

[Get Real!]

Awe… you are unable to answer the simple question!

But you’re not alone of course… a LOT of people in the West go on and on about this “NATO”… but the truth of the matter is it doesn’t have a single bout under its belt and everything is just an assumption!

The reality is that this brave and powerful “NATO” you admire, is unable and unwilling to directly engage Russia in a conventional bout.

In fact you can no longer even assume that this “NATO” has superior armaments to those of Russia, because after THOUSANDS of such pieces of hardware made their way against Russia they have yet to make a dent on Russia’s advancements!

I really don’t know what it’ll take to stop Russia short of nukes, because so far this “NATO” has thrown pretty much everything it had at them…

If anything it is this “NATO” that should be more troubled of its capabilities than Russia…. or perhaps it is and the very reason the Trump administration has reached out to Russia for an alternative solution!

[Londonrake]

No answer to that really. Nighty night.

[Get Real!]

No answer to that really. Nighty night.

Well of course not... but I won’t let you go before I correct your mistakes/omissions:

1. “against lowly Ukraine”

Incorrect... in 2022 the Ukraine had a professional army of 720,000 men when the Russians invaded and crushed them within a month, with just 350,000 men!

Additionally, they have had a never-ending supply of *everything* from 40+ countries... so that’s hardly “lowly”!


2. “Fundamentally, NATO is a mutual defence organisation.”

Negative... there was nothing defensive about these attacks:

1995 - Air campaign against Bosnia
1999 - Air campaign against Serbia
2011 - Air campaign against Libya


3. “250,000 casualties”

Allow me to introduce you to the Ukrainian Equation: 2,000,000 / 250,000 = 8

Have a guess what this magic number is...

It is how many Ukrainians in uniform have died for every dead Russian!

And it looks like a pretty sweet ratio to me... as far as war fatality ratios go!

[repulsewarrior]

...psalm Sunday, lest we forget; but i thought this topic is on Syria.

[Lordo]

While we are at it