Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I was right this war would become stale and boring with not much news about it.

First images of the damaged Moskva.
What we knew before:
1. It is really difficult to sink a 12,000 tonne cruiser with 2x150kg warheads. A well trained crew could easily save the ship.
2. Russians are not necessarily well trained
3. Moskva wasnt upgraded like Marshal Ustinov and is a 1980s relic with minor upgrades to her propulsion.

Anyway, intentions aside, Ukraine's tactics are certainly harsh.  But if I were being murdered for no reason, I'd probably be much harsher.


https://twitter.com/drewharwell/status/1514941871830835200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1514941871830835200%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdrewharwell%2Fstatus%2F1514941871830835200%3Fref_src%3Dtwsrc255Etfw257Ctwcamp255Etweetembed257Ctwterm255E1514944167318806531257Ctwgr255E257Ctwcon255Es2_26ref_url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftexags.com%2Fforums%2F16%2Ftopics%2F3283686

that isn't just harsh, it's inhumane and disgusting, and might even be a war crime.

Do you think Finland is correct if they apply for NATO membership?

They'd be accepted quickly.  (Do they have neoNazis up there?)

Finland would be insane to join NATO. Ditto Sweden. Being neutral has served both countries well. 

#1 - Joining would only inflame tensions. A LOT. We need to de-escalate tensions, not escalate them. 

#2 - there is no real need for either of them to join NATO. There has been no tension/fighting/proxy wars going on with Finland or Sweden and Russia like there had been with Russia-Ukraine for almost a decade now. And that point aside- Russia's military cannot even execute an invasion of Ukraine. They are getting their asses shown and being exposed. Imagine them trying to invade 2 or 3 countries at once. Yeah, they can't. There's zero shot they could pull that off.

#3 - irregardless of Finland or Sweden being in NATO - IF on the less than 1% chance Russia tried anything with either country (again, they are having a tough enough time with Ukraine as is) - the US/NATO wouldn't stand aside. The calls for war with Russia would be too great. 

Would Zelensky accept a cease fire if Putin offered now, or once the land bridge is secured?

there is basically never justification for invasion if you ask me. it's one of the most heinous and serious crimes a country can commit. And the US has it's own dirty history with this. Obviously what Russia is doing is inhuman and disgusting. But it's hard for anyone in US to cast stones at Russia when this country has massive blood on it's hands via multiple unprovoked, illegal invasions. It's just hard to take US media and political elite serious on this without wanting to laugh, cry, and vomit.

Invading 'Stan was justified in my opinion. The US was attacked on 9/11 and the people responsible (Al Queda) needed to be taken down. 

In hindsight, was it good for the US?

I'll give that a resounding NO.

ISIS is still a thing, even if Al Queda isn't. The bottom line is there will always be Islamic radicals looking to do harm on the US, so long as the US supports Israel.

I know. WAY off topic, so sorry about that UTee. Maybe he will now spare me.

And Russian cease fires have shown to not be worth the paper they are written on. 

By cease fire, I mean formal agreement from both, perhaps with monitors.  I don't mean a cession of conflict because one side is angling for something.

Right now, Ukraine is getting hammered pretty badly on infrastructure, and their farmers probably can't plant what they would normally, fuel for one thing.