Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

Anyway. Should, as you seem to be saying, we end up with Russia using a nuclear weapon, which I think could be entirely possible - the Russian population are already being primed with talk of western nuclear "blackmail" - then Mr Putin will be signing his own redundancy notice and Russia will be a friendless, pariah state for generations.

How come the USA did not become a pariah State after nuking Japan twice?

Wasn’t the justification for nuking was to save lives (American lives) and to end the war?

Can Russia not use the same justification for nuking Ukraine or does such justification is ONLY reserved for the collective West?

Just asking!

[Get Real!]

Look at the list of countless TRASH a Russian nuclear strike against America, would instantly cleanse:

Junkies, Pushers, Distributors, Prostitutes, Bimbos, Pimps, Pedos, Trannies, Bikies, Karens, Rappers, Crooks, Con artists, Criminals,
Televangelists, Politicians, Zionists, Republicans, Democrats, Militarists, Arms dealers, Preppers, Hawks, Cops, Judges, Lawyers, etc...

Destroy Satan’s lair and 99.99% of the world’s problems would be instantly gone!

Warming up to the “great cleansing” yet? Well Russia is our only hope!

Support #1: RUSSIA!

USSR.jpg

[Kikapu]

Let’s just explore what consequences Russia would face from the collective West should Russia use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine as America is warning Russia that there will be consequences.

Will there be more sanctions or will there be a nuclear response against Russia?

Personally, the collective West will not stick their necks out for Ukraine by firing nukes at Russia because there will be a retaliation and which country would suffer the most economically should that happen, Russia getting nuked or the country who had dared to nuke Russia? The answer should be self evident I would imagine, therefore, the nuclear option against Russia for the collective West is out of the question, which gives Russia a free hand to nuke Ukraine should it come to that. There will be other consequences for Russia, but being nuked by the collective West is not one of them, and Zelensky knows it too well, which is why he is in a panic mode.

[Lordo]

Why would Russia need to use nuclear weapons. Once they secure what they came for, they can bomb any part of Ukraine if they should want to continue the war. They have already knocked the electricity supply out which makes moving around on electric trains impossible. for the military They will knock the bridges out and Ukrainians will not be able to wipe their ass.

The west is not about to risk all-out war, they have too much to lose. They have Russia isolated from energy supplies to Europe and they have the Europeans hoodwinked into buying American/Saudi supplies at 4 times the price. The longer this situation lasts the better for them. It is in their interest to keep Ukraine bleeding as long as possible. They don't care what happens to the Ukrainians.

[Kikapu]

Why would Russia need to use nuclear weapons. Once they secure what they came for, they can bomb any part of Ukraine if they should want to continue the war. They have already knocked the electricity supply out which makes moving around on electric trains impossible. for the military They will knock the bridges out and Ukrainians will not be able to wipe their ass.

The west is not about to risk all-out war, they have too much to lose. They have Russia isolated from energy supplies to Europe and they have the Europeans ashoodwinked into buying American/Saudi supplies at 4 times the price. The longer this situation lasts the better for them. It is in their interest to keep Ukraine bleeding as long as possible. They don't care what happens to the Ukrainians.

Well, because Ukraine is not going to stop attacking areas controlled by Russia, especially the collective West continue giving Zelensky more and more offensive weapons. At one point it will reach a boiling point and then tactical nuclear weapons could be used.

[Paphitis]

Why would Russia need to use nuclear weapons. Once they secure what they came for, they can bomb any part of Ukraine if they should want to continue the war. They have already knocked the electricity supply out which makes moving around on electric trains impossible. for the military They will knock the bridges out and Ukrainians will not be able to wipe their ass.

The west is not about to risk all-out war, they have too much to lose. They have Russia isolated from energy supplies to Europe and they have the Europeans ashoodwinked into buying American/Saudi supplies at 4 times the price. The longer this situation lasts the better for them. It is in their interest to keep Ukraine bleeding as long as possible. They don't care what happens to the Ukrainians.

Well, because Ukraine is not going to stop attacking areas controlled by Russia, especially the collective West continue giving Zelensky more and more offensive weapons. At one point it will reach a boiling point and then tactical nuclear weapons could be used.

You mean Ukraine will not stop defending themselves.

Ruzzia invaded Ukraine territory. The onus is on Ruzzia withdrawing.

If Ruzzia use a nuclear weapon, it will be to their detriment. They will be a Pariah for the next 50 years. It can't be compared to Japan at all. The Allies then were only seeking a Japanese surrender to end WW2 and did not want to invade Japan. So this was the only way.

In Ukraine's case, a tactical nuclear weapon will only give Ukrainians more resolve to fight on for the liberation of their territory. And, Ruzzia will be risking a proportional response from US and NATO - in my opinion, once nuclear weapons are used, there is no reason for NATO to not mobilize and enter Ukraine with boots on the ground and declare a total no fly zone over Ukraine. NATO will need to mobilize the most advance Air Defence Systems at their disposal.

Pootin said he was not bluffing.

Let's see if he has the balls.

In the meantime, Ukraine will fight and fight and fight till it is liberated. They are entitled to do that as defenders of their nation. They are breaking no laws and they have all of us behind them. If they don't fight, there will be another attack on Ukraine in 2, 3, 5, or 8 years time. So suck it up.

You guys are in an alternative reality and seem to think you can change the goal posts. With the changing goal posts, Turkey of course is well entitled to hold a referendum in North Cyprus, rig the vote and annex half the island. In fact, that is EXACTLY what we would deserve if Cypriots support this alternative reality of Ruzzia, but the vast majority of Cypriots do NOT have the same thinking that seems to be prevalent on this forum, so Cyprus doesn't deserve this at all. It is in fact illegal, not just in Cyprus' case, but also for Ukraine and all countries as well. And Cyprus has been very wise in its stance on Ukraine, and it has been noted by the Americans I am sure, which is why the Americans want to lift all arms embargoes on Cyprus and help Cyprus as much as possible. What this means I am not sure. But the Americans are very fair, and see Cyprus giving up their T-80s to Ukraine, and the Americans actually want to replace these tanks, even free of charge so as to not disadvantage the RoC and CNG at all. This is of course the American mindset. If the Americans can't supply M1A1, then they will speak to France about supplying LeClerc which I believe is just as good if not even better.

Pootin will not stop until it consumes many countries. But that is assuming Pootin survives which I don't think he will.

[Kikapu]

If Ruzzia use a nuclear weapon, it will be to their detriment. They will be a Pariah for the next 50 years. It can't be compared to Japan at all. The Allies then were only seeking a Japanese surrender to end WW2 and did not want to invade Japan. So this was the only way.

You see Paphitis, you are making excuses to the collective West in their justification for nuking Japan twice, a civilian targets each time no less, because it would save lives of the allied forces had the war continued, and if the aim is to end the war by nuking the opposition, then surely under your own reasoning in using nukes can be justified, then surely Russia using nukes in Ukraine would also end the war and saving thousands of lives from both sides, no?

[Paphitis]

If Ruzzia use a nuclear weapon, it will be to their detriment. They will be a Pariah for the next 50 years. It can't be compared to Japan at all. The Allies then were only seeking a Japanese surrender to end WW2 and did not want to invade Japan. So this was the only way.

You see Paphitis, you are making excuses to the collective West in their justification for nuking Japan twice, a civilian targets each time no less, because it would save lives of the allied forces had the war continued, and if the aim is to end the war by nuking the opposition, then surely under your own reasoning in using nukes can be justified, then surely Russia using nukes in Ukraine would also end the war and saving thousands of lives from both sides, no?

The west isn't required to justify anything. The response from the west has already been justified and it is just a response to an illegal invasion of a sovereign country and member of the United Nations.

The west has not invaded anyone, or acted illegally.

The collective west sees the invasion of Ukraine as no different to the invasion of Poland by Hitler, and it is an event which will either create dire consequences for the globe. In any event, threats of Nuclear War are completely meaningless. The western military doctrine when dealing with dangerous tyrants like pootin, is that the west makes a stand in Ukraine, to prevent future disasters for Poland, Moldova, Finland, and the Baltics. Ukraine now is the defence line for Europe at large. So now we are in a game of poker. And the collective west and NATO are calling to see Pootin's hand. If worse comes to worse, Russia will be gambling with the existence of Ruzzia at large.

For the last 20 years, the West has given Pootin the benefit of doubt. But now, those days are over.

As for nuking Japan, the choices were clear. Either nuke Japan, and cause Japan to surrender, or invade them, have war for many more years to come, which Japan would have a good chance of winning, but losing even more civilians.

Neither the US, Australia, or Britain would have had the appetite for continued war.

[Kikapu]

As for nuking Japan, the choices were clear. Either nuke Japan, and cause Japan to surrender, or invade them, have war for many more years to come, which Japan would have a good chance of winning, but losing even more civilians.

Neither the US, Australia, or Britain would have had the appetite for continued war.

Justification, justification, justification!

So why can’t Russia too justify to end the war in Ukraine by nuking couple of places in Ukraine?

I am not saying Russia should, but if they must, would you then say, “yeah, it is justifiable because it would save thousand of lives on both sides because Russia does not have the stomach to lose 100,000 of it’s soldiers, so it make sense to kill countless on the other sides with couple of nukes to bring the war to an end”!

Don’t you see how ridiculous your argument sounds, that one was justifiable and the would not be!

But guess what, a precedence was set with Japan getting nuked for what was claimed to be a justifiable act, because the side which made it justifiable was the side also won the war. So, Russia would too justify it’s actions should they nuke Ukraine and win the war, no?

[Paphitis]

As for nuking Japan, the choices were clear. Either nuke Japan, and cause Japan to surrender, or invade them, have war for many more years to come, which Japan would have a good chance of winning, but losing even more civilians.

Neither the US, Australia, or Britain would have had the appetite for continued war.

Justification, justification, justification!

So why can’t Russia too justify to end the war in Ukraine by nuking couple of places in Ukraine?

I am not saying Russia should, but if they must, would you then say, “yeah, it is justifiable because it would save thousand of lives on both sides because Russia does not have the stomach to lose 100,000 of it’s soldiers, so it make sense to kill countless on the other sides with couple of nukes to bring the war to an end”!

Don’t you see how ridiculous your argument sounds, that one was justifiable and the would not be!

But guess what, a precedence was set with Japan getting nuked for what was claimed to be a justifiable act, because the side which made it justifiable was the side also won the war. So, Russia would too justify it’s actions should they nuke Ukraine and win the war, no?

Ruzzia can do what it wants. But there will be no justification for it either legally or morally. Ruzzia is the aggressor and breaking international laws left and right.

And, they are taking the biggest gamble ever over Ruzzia's existence. Sorry, but I'm not going to argue over whether they will or not. It's possible they will. But then it's also possible that's the end of Ruzzia. Personally, I think it's a remote possibility but still a possibility.

For me it's neither here nor there. What is at stake is the UN Charter and peace and stability of the entire planet and especially Europe.

Ukraine and collective west have no choice. Ukraine must and will be liberated, tactical nukes or not.

Making threats is nothing new for Pootin. If Ukraine is nuked, then in my opinion, NATO has no choice but to go all in with boots on the ground.

No I don't see your point at all. Nuking Hiroshima is no different to carpet bombing Dresden. Body counts were similar. That is how WW2 was fought. Ruzzia is still in that mindset mind you, whereas the collective west do it differently these days.