Is there any point for Russia to keep military ships in Kaliningrad anymore? Or any heavy weaponry for that matter?

Is there any point for Russia to keep military ships in Kaliningrad anymore? Or any heavy weaponry for that matter?
Kaliningrads location is just not tenable. Seeing what Ukrainians are capable of doing to Russian ships with just drone boats, any kind of heavy weaponry based in Kaliningrad would be destroyed within a few days into a war with NATO.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    At this point they might as well send the Baltic Fleet to the scrappers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They should send it to the pacific again, for the lolz

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Except this time the Bongs should actually declair war over 2 fishing boats.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Cant Japanese submarines are blocking danish straits

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Part of the finno-korean hyperwar?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That'd be a huge waste of prewar steel.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Asymmetric warfare. You don't need ships in equal numbers. IF the ships get destroyed, WW3 will already be on. And value of ships during all out nuclear war is questionable. However, they have their uses in peace times. So they'll keep the ships and the fleet. Simple as.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >And value of ships during all out nuclear war is questionable.
      Is this vatnik moronic?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >WW3 will already be on
      with whom? Russhitia is smaller then italy and changs are hilariously incompetent at war

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >we will not need those ships.
      Preventive coping?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >russia just made sure NATO grew bigger and cut them off
    i dont think there ever was a bigger political frick-up than this since 1939.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sweden and Finland were doing military exercises with NATO for decades. Let's not pretend they were "neutral" in any meaningful way.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We were neutral in the sense that we had no Article 5 protection or anything, nor popular support for anything involving NATO for that matter. To this day we have people (read: commies) decrying our entry into the fascist-imperialist camp

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Conditionally neutral. A short NATO latency was developed and maintained in the defense forces to integrate rapidly if need be, but there was still a benefit of a doubt given that Russia might be a good neighbor this time around and that the capability of the FDF to inflict enormous losses on an invader would deter aggression. Feb 24th showed those assumptions didn't hold water. A credible defense was upgraded to an overwhelming deterrent.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Sweden and Finland were doing military exercises with NATO for decades.
        Yes, as part of NATO's Partnership for Peace, a program in which lots of neutral (and even former Soviet) states have participated, picrel. Joint military exercises with NATO forces are a means of fostering positive relations and building trust and cooperation. Even the Swiss have participated since December 1996.
        >Let's not pretend they were "neutral" in any meaningful way.
        Look at the picture a little more closely, Anon. Russia's PfP membership was approved June 22, 1994 -- two and a half years before Switzerland's.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Dumb argument, Sweden and Finland were the most NATOfied of neutral countries, they were always de-facto members

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sweden sure, but Finland absolutely not. Finland was USSR aligned due to fear of being invaded.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Dumb argument, Sweden and Finland were the most NATOfied of neutral countries, they were always de-facto members
            Picrel, and no amount of seethe or cope will rewrite history.
            Sweden and Finland were actively neutral during the Cold War and used that neutrality as a bully pulpit to try and bridge gaps. One of the documents Putin wiped his ass on in 2022 was the HELSINKI Accords, dimwit.
            The Soviet Union leaned on Sweden and Finland more than once to censor stuff to which the Kremlin took offense, but used their independence as a means of assuring the rest of Europe that they'd taken a breather on their expansionist policies of the 1930s (you know, when they entered into a treaty with Nazi Germany and began annexing territory). They could point to the two independent Nordic states as proof that they were a trustworthy actor, yet another fiction that Russian aggression has now conclusively disproven.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      1939?
      Try forever.
      Russia has never--literally NEVER--in its existence been in as bad geopolitical situation as it is now.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I mean, when do we put the start year for "Russia"?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Great Stand on the Ugra River in 1480?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'd say it still isn't quite as bad as post-WWI, but only because it hasn't started eating itself yet.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What? They were in an excellent geopolitical position after WWII.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He said World War One (where Russia managed to collapse and lose a bunch of colonies after being on the WINNING side).

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Is this a joke? You might have noticed a little something to the left of those 3 countries called the baltic sea.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    A solid land bridge = conquering most of Lithuania and a bit of Poland, by which point the Suwalki gap is irrelevant.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >going thru ukraine
    Yall tried lmao, made it 60 km

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Yall tried
      Who's yall refering to? In anycase, I already said it's border is much more defended.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    ...like that was the plan or do you still think this is remotely feasible after they got bogged down in fricking Ukraine of all places.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    how is russia going to take the baltics when the NATO will be flying missions from sweden and finland now?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >flying missions from sweden and finland
      NATO could already fly around Kaliningrad. The fins and Swedes don't change that. The overall level of support that can be given to the baltics is lower by sea than by land, and air is lower still. While NATO is trying to support the baltics in this manner, Russia is pouring in across the land border. It's an inherent advantage.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >NATO could already fly around Kaliningrad.
        But now they don't need to, they can just fly through the backdoor across the Baltic sea.
        Are you even looking at your own map?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think you understand. Flying around Kaliningrad and flying through the baltic sea are the same thing.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    At this point Poland alone could probably stop the Russian army, let alone all of Europe + everything the US has stationed there.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Do you really think that Russian forces in Prussia will not be wiped out at the very beginning? This will be the main target for Polish rocket artillery.

    [...]

    >and attack Russia's east border with significant force.
    In the event of war, NATO's goal will be to destroy Russian forces in the Baltics.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Yeah bro, Russia is just going to be amassing troops and no-one is going to do anything. Then Russia is going to block sea travel from Kaliningrad, and no-one is going to anything. It's not like every fricking military installation in Kaliningrad is going to flattened to rubble by artillery and missiles.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    If they could win they'd be doing it. They're pushing as hard as they can now. Their current plan is to hope Trump gets elected. If not, they can sustain their current asymmetric attrition style of warfare (losing 5 men for every ukie they kill) for another 2 years before things get problematic.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >bro please the best forces are being held back for the big thrust trust me bro
    >bro please they can just coup and annex belarus with no resistance bro

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]
    Do you really think that Russian forces in Prussia will not be wiped out at the very beginning? This will be the main target for Polish rocket artillery.
    [...]
    >and attack Russia's east border with significant force.
    In the event of war, NATO's goal will be to destroy Russian forces in the Baltics.

    I meant to say West border, my bad. As in, I meant Poland moving up north and attacking to the east. Kaliningrad makes that difficult.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It stays in its hole or it gets the hose again

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I am 90% sure Suwałki gap is not part of any real vatnig strategy. The area is just lakes, forests and shitty roads, hardly any railways. The brunt of the attack would be through Vilnus and Kaunas, or if Russians are very optimistic - Białystok and onwards to Masuria

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >so I don't see why not.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020–2021_Belarusian_protests
    true that the government wouldnt care, i wonder what the people would think

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nothing seeing how Belarusians are cucked already and let the Russians beat them up during the last protests

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      thd government is elected by the people in enough of a margin they don't ape out and just grumble. Perfect Russian addition

      [...]
      At this point, a war breaking out in the Baltics would immediately result in a coup in Belarus and Russia losing its influence over it.

      And in response to an attempted coup the Belarusian govt. invites Russian peace keepers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >And in response to an attempted coup the Belarusian govt. invites Russian peace keepers
        The fear of this was the only reason Belarussians lost the protests. The war in Ukraine has dissipated the fear of Russian military.
        The protests were massive in Belarus and ended with even greater hate against the regime. Very often this results in renewed protests after a few years.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think you appreciate quite how precarious Colonel Luka's position is.
        His own military and security services would be the ones couping the government in a hypothetical war.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    At this point, a war breaking out in the Baltics would immediately result in a coup in Belarus and Russia losing its influence over it.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    so whats your cope going to be after you get bogged down in eastern baltic areas just like you are getting beated by a snail right now in ukraine
    >how weak
    you are certainly underestimating them. That is good. Means you moronic ass will try another kyiv convoy on vilnius/riga/tallinn at the same time and lose again most of your best stuff

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Besides bogs circled near borders there's a ton more all trough Baltics. Every dark or brown spot. They're basically sea level countries.
      It's not the open steppe of Ukraine with highlands and valleys, where gaining pyrrhic victory over a slag pile allows advance for tens of kilometers or highland arty advantage. 500 meters ahead you're up against next river, lake, marsh or bog you must cross taking fire from small earth mound just across it. And there's just a few dry or elevated strips that will most often have cities or main roads with good choke points.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        soooo
        dark forest are good for you?

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They may just adopt a pre-NATO Finnic style, and use their smaller ships as guerrillas

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Estonia's army has only a 7,700 people. They have 10 tanks, no jets and no artillery. They're the closest thing to "weak" that weak can be.
    -Vladimir Lenin, 1919

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      They've also got a population that hates the russians and donated most of what little stuff they had just so the ukrainians could kill russians. You underestimate wholely how much the civilized world hates you, and hates the russians. Molotovs will burn everything even civilian .22lrs won't kill, it's why the Americans have the second amendment and their most evil leaders try to pry that away from them. You will suffer under the boots of civilization and people who love life as much as you hate being wrong.

      I'm pointing out the figures of the Estonian military. They're just too small to stop a serious Russian invasion by themselves. The other baltic states are not much better.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe 2 years ago, but currently Russia is assaulting with unarmored UTVs because they can't maintain their supply of Cold War armor stock.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That doesn't make estonian army any better and pretending everything is fine slows down reforms that should have been done years ago.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not pretending anything, I'm saying the Russian military has degraded so much that taking the Baltics would be an extreme challenge for them. Just meet the 3:1 preferred ratio of attackers versus defenders against Estonian forces and rapid reserves would require over 100k troops.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >rapid reserves would require over 100k troops.
              Russian are celebrating taking city with prewar population of 30k, which cost them 30-40k soldiers. This is success for them. Russians will happily throw way more at Baltics if they think they will win. And western europe is still going at it in half assed way and to be honest baltics aren't that much better either, considering how close they are to annihilation. They should be running 5%+ military budget and several year long draft in their situation.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You would think the utter failure of our (American) government to stay united and provide continued aid would convince EU countries to step their shit up, but they are still so slow to respond and too cautious. When Russia leaked the German conversation about Taurus missiles, the Germans should have sent them immediately. Europe and the USA are both being a bunch of fricking pussies, and this could let Russia gain the upper hand. Which is pathetic - if Russians weren't corrupt and incompetent they probably could have overrun Ukraine and more like they were planning.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >When Russia leaked the German conversation about Taurus missiles, the Germans should have sent them immediately.
                Yeah. But for that we woulde need something like a Kanzler, not this pathetic excuse for one we have right now. And here i thought Merkel was the lowest point we could reach...

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Whatever floats your Moskva boat, anon.
                Oh.. wait.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Europe really needs to start taking situation seriously instead of thinking they are untouchable or situation will deteriorate further look at

                You would think the utter failure of our (American) government to stay united and provide continued aid would convince EU countries to step their shit up, but they are still so slow to respond and too cautious. When Russia leaked the German conversation about Taurus missiles, the Germans should have sent them immediately. Europe and the USA are both being a bunch of fricking pussies, and this could let Russia gain the upper hand. Which is pathetic - if Russians weren't corrupt and incompetent they probably could have overrun Ukraine and more like they were planning.

                he gets it

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Where, precisely, is Russia going to muster those 100,000 soldiers and their attendant gear like vehicles, arty, weapons, supplies, and air support? Where can Russia stage a buildup that size that US satellite recon won't see it telegraphed in advance, where the 32 member states of NATO's collective ELINT and HUMINT will be cunningly redirected towards an illusory threat somewhere other than Russian territory? You really think all those first-world air forces won't be on a hair trigger, figuratively and/or literally loaded for bear?
                If Putin thinks the whole "nope, no military buildup, just some annual drills, any rumors to the contrary are Russophobia" story might catch people off guard twice, then the brainworms will have officially concluded their hostile takeover.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Read it again, you illiterate subhuman ESL moron. 100k+ would be needed to get 3:1 numbers against only the initial baltic forces and local NATO detachments. And if we' re to be real, an army as shit as the Russians would sooner require 10:1 to actually get anywhere.

                That's BEFORE any further NATO reinforcements arrive, and ignoring that NATO airforces would rapidly secure toal air dominance and proceede to slaughter russian forces en masse with total impunity.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well that's nice, except they'*re NATO members and NATO forces are also there and will utterly curbstomp Russias Army the moment one singular ziggers sets a toe over the border.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >no jets
      >1919

      Since the Jet wasn't invented for another decade after this supposed quote, I think it can be safely disregarded.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    They've also got a population that hates the russians and donated most of what little stuff they had just so the ukrainians could kill russians. You underestimate wholely how much the civilized world hates you, and hates the russians. Molotovs will burn everything even civilian .22lrs won't kill, it's why the Americans have the second amendment and their most evil leaders try to pry that away from them. You will suffer under the boots of civilization and people who love life as much as you hate being wrong.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >I blindly believe state media
    >state media of a country at war
    >state media of a country at war, in matters of war
    >if you don't, you're a israelite
    I don't even know what to say anymore
    Surely if someone linked the fricking Kyiv Post you'd (rightfully) call them a propagandized moron, right?

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    and you forgot the biggest militia and reserves in the baltics

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >and all the underage girls sucking your dick
    Suggesting that any of us wouldn't have that in Africa or Asia.
    Anon, I am disappointed.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You can't go to Africa or Asia when you have to work 9-5 and make boss rich so he can go instead.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Since when is Sweden in NATO?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      since last week

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      7 March 2024

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Last week. The Baltic and artic ocean are now natos.
      Next the black sea.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Black Sea might as well be given that Turkey controls the strait

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    this is the first time i hear we have tanks and no arty. Where did you get this kind of info

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Da. Mighty russian army will close the suwalki gap in 15 minutes The eggs will be measured the so to speak HATO ass will be in the ass the monkeys will be gassed and the world will learn what russian power looks like in the multipolar world

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    This pretty much confirms that all conspiracy theories, especially about israelites, have one source. Seething KGB.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being

    The Baltic Fleet will be sunk in the first few hours of a conflict but it does influence the deployment of NATO assets and importantly it can be used for sabre rattling.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >You morons don't genuinely believe the Baltics have any chance of not being fully occupied, right? Right?
    why not?
    russia barely moved the front by 2 meters after 3 years in ukraine, and its not even in NATO.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]

    >Da komrad, our armored assault will easily take care of this!

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >ukraina is a much bigger superpower than russiya and and and and they lost 9000 trillion square miles!!! and and

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    The war hasn't changed the lines much in 10 years. Just a shit ton of dead Russians

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you go back to when it was a cold part of the war 10 years ago probably 500000 Russians have died. Trillions have been spent. Nothing has changed.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >bait
    a bait is saying ukraine outnumbered russia and ukraine lost a gazoomba biboomba mamoomba millions of square kilometers lmao.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    And here we are. Thirdies thinking Ukrainians running out of 155 mm shells at times will stop this war. Us Americans tend to focus on America but you thirdies you just don't get it.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    How about kherson?
    Did Ukraine also never get it back?
    What about karkiv?
    I think when russia holds something forever that's wishful thinking.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody likes shilling, except for redditors.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    you think invasion is gonna happen on the snap of the finger?
    like no logistical build-up or anything?
    like balt glowies arent everywhere in russian institutions and vice versa

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >only need 50000
    Shitposting for lulz is still shitposting anon.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    What about vehicles? Will golf carts suffice? I guess they're gonna have to lol

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Ukraine outnumbered Russia at first
    I don't know how true that is but
    >invade a country that has a bigger army than the one you're invading with, despite literally any mouth-breathing moron being able to tell you that you should be the one in numerical superiority
    >this is somehow evidence that future invasions will go well
    If it was true that the ukies outnumbered the russians, it's evidence that the russians are somehow more moronic than I previously thought
    How do you even frick up that bad

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      In the past 20 years we've gone from Russia being in Berlin in two weeks to NATO being unwilling use nukes against Russia to conquering Ukraine in 3 days to Russia is fighting all of NATO to Donald Trump will force Ukraine to lose to Ukraine is a larger and more powerful nation than Russia. But also we can take the Baltics without trouble.

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >1917
    >OK, let's ignore the territorial losses France will never get back. Do you even know how many French left the country and died? How ruin the country's economy is?

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    They ARE doing it, they are doing their maximum. They are in a war economy, they are throwing everything they can without (mostly) compromising their border security and destroying their economy. And the results are what we see, there is nothing more to this.

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If there was an actual war, you'd be left on the street to perish from the nukes, and your government would make room in the bunkers for muslim rapefugees.
    But since drones are so effective against naval assets, they could turn it into a large drone base.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >muh nookksss
      how exactly will you help those poor oppressed donbawean children with nooks?

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it was and always will be first strike location
    - and with Polan acquiring 500 himars and 200 chunmoo they can hit 4k targets simultaneously with only those launchers

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    NTA and TZD enjoyer BUT
    >surface ships
    >R*ssian navy
    >nuclear war
    Unless it’s a submarine tender that didn’t get looted via craft, AND the commander isn’t the type to frick off to the Southern Hemisphere the second Moscow goes offline… no, it’s not useful.
    Ships need pretty consistent replenishment, something you’re not going to get.

    TL;DR
    peacetime R*ssian ship = fleet in being, good
    post-WWII = choose your adventure: vaporized, beached, or sunk. because you ain’t leaving the baltic lmao

  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anon months ago made a detailed case why Russia should have scrapped the black sea and baltic fleets 50yrs ago. Conclusion why they haven't was that Russia is purposefully wasting money like the Saudis with their building projects.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Post it

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >muh iskander
    >muh baltics in two days
    >muh russophobic west
    >muh NOOOKS
    All of that wanking and yet
    NATO countries invaded by Russia: 0
    CSTO: dead
    Lake? NATO
    Hotel? Trivago

  51. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    My take on it is that Kaliningrad isn't defensible, but that hardly matters for any territory held by a nuclear power. Basically, there's never going to be a hot war, so Kaliningrad will forever be a port to the Baltic sea and airbase. If there is a hot war, Kaliningrad is destroyed, but at the same time as everything else.

  52. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    If they were, then 1st Tank Guard wouldn't be involved at the start of the war

  53. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >In a few days into a war with NATO

    Not in a few days, in a few hours.

  54. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Territorial competition is one of the few things on earth that can be can be called a zero sum game. Even if it's a place surrounded by hostiles, it's still territory. There's also the geostrategic value of having territory in that location. At the very least, it's a magnet for attracting fire and troops that could go elsewhere.

  55. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Is there any point for Russia
    no.

  56. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >intelligence agency?
    People keep acting like most HumInt don't come from people asking family members/friends in that institution for 'rumors' and such. Dosier exchanges like you see in movies are actually quite rare.

  57. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Is there any point for Russia to keep military ships in Kaliningrad anymore?
    The most important reason of all. Saving Face

  58. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >what if Russia was actually holding back
    ...because two years of drawn-out conflict, economic sanctions, hundreds of thousands of casualties, irretrievable losses of lostech, and depleting the stockpiles of the former Soviet Union was somehow the best case scenario all along?
    >they will unleash everything they have with full conscription and war economy after a false flag attack? they could roll over Ukraine between arms shipments and then use the momentum and captured resources to push into Poland, especially after taking Belarus in a bloodless coup
    Anon, if they COULD do that they already WOULD have. Why the frick would they wait around with their thumbs up their asses getting clowned on on the geopolitical world stage for literally years? What possible purpose could that serve? Do you think the Coalition against Saddam in Gulf I and II were heartbroken that they achieved victory so quickly and bloodlessly?
    Picrel, Russia tried to do a lightning war, performed all analysis without red-teaming, assumed nothing but blue-sky outcomes, then got their asses handed to them and didn't have a backup plan. Nations with significant reserves of combat effectiveness don't do moronic things like, I dunno, expend several months, 400 armored vehicles, and tens of thousands of fatalities to secure a goddamned slag heap in Avdiivka, okay?

  59. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >since the Baltics location is much more untenable than Kaliningrad
    By that logic you're assuming that what is true of Russian logistics must also be true of European and US logistics. You do realize that the United States can move megatons of palletized war materiel to places OTHER than railway depots?
    >Doesn't make sense for Finland to be joining NATO
    Seems to have made sense to the Finns, kek.
    >Doesn't make sense for Scandinavians to join aggressively anti-Russian alliance when they live, breath and sleep only while the Russia's Northern Fleet allows it.
    Wasn't that the same thing you asswipes were trumpeting about the Russia's mighty Black Sea Fleet? The one that's suffered multiple losses to a non-NATO state without much of a navy? A naval conflict between Russia and NATO is quite possibly the only humiliation that could ever eclipse the one Russia's currently undergoing, as they fail to retake Kherson or Kharkiv.

  60. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Were you born before or after Russia collapsed into a failed state in 1991?

    Russia is much weaker now than the last time it tried looking West. It failed then.

  61. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >You do realize it has more nuclear submarines than all other European nations combined?
    Are they all as well-maintained as the Kursk, lol?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The funny thing is that Russia is so ridiculously poor and incompetent that tiny Norway basically had to provide third world aid to them, in the form of millions of dollars and expertise. This was all to help them safely dismantle and dispose of rusting ships, submarines and nuclear waste near Murmansk. This started in the late 90s and early 2000s, and has continued up until recently.
      It's absurd how subhuman and pathetic the Russians are. Just literal Black folk with pale skin.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Prefer nigs, they at least dont lie about who they are

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The american sub-breed does.

  62. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >NATO is already dead. Trump said as much.
    Much like the Russians (picrel), Trump says lots of things.
    >“With the historic Abraham Accords, I even made peace in the Middle East.”
    >“They want to make our Army tanks all electric.”
    >“I cooperated far more” than Joe Biden in the classified documents investigations.
    >Democrats “used COVID to cheat” in the 2020 election.
    >“The same people that raided Israel are pouring into our once beautiful USA, through our TOTALLY OPEN SOUTHERN BORDER, at Record Numbers.”
    >“Florida sort of had a mandate because they were giving the vaccine, they were demanding everybody take the vaccine.”
    NATO just expanded to 32 member nations. I'd take Donny's statements with a grain of salt.

  63. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A sub base in Kaliningrad could cause grief across the entire Baltic until the crews ran out of food.

  64. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >muh Trump will save us

    Anyone believing that any voters, much less Americans, actually meaningfully affect foreign policy just hasn't been paying attention for the past 60 years.

  65. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >since the Baltics location is much more untenable than Kaliningrad
    It's not, though, given Russias total and absolute inferiority in both air and land combat vis-a-vis NATO.

    >Doesn't make sense for Finland to be joining NATO when their capital is located within Iskander's range.
    Their capital may be within Iskander range. Yet St. Petersburg is also within HIMARS range. If you wanna play that game, zigger? NATO will finish it.

    >Russia's Northern Fleet
    Russia's Northern Fleet lives only because NATO allows it. You do realise that NATO has literally infinitely more modern, worthwhile warships than Russia, and would slaughter Russias obsolete rustbucket submarines in short order? (At least the ones that wouldn't sink by themselves if they tried running them at wartime loads.) Ok then, maybe you just weren't aware.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >literally infinitely more
      That would imply Russia has zer-
      Oh. Right.

  66. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    NATO is stronger than ever before. Trump can't do shit about that. Seethe more.

  67. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Presumably, the Russians wanted Poland to waste billions on hundreds of Norwegian anti-ship missiles.

  68. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They got some radars and jammers in there idk

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *