News Related To The Ukraine / Russian War

sear said:
Even if it is as you say, not clear to me the Russian carnage in Ukraine is an improvement.

If Russia were serious about attending to the Azov Battalion, why not an ultimatum?
Russia inform Ukraine, terminate Azov Battalion misconduct, or we'll invade and eliminate them. I don't recall Putin making any conditional demands on Ukraine while Russian military troops were massing on Ukraine's border.

It looks more to me like Russian / Putin territorial avarice.
Much of the scholarly / experienced diplomatic / historic opinion on it corroborates that. And commonly attending such explanation, the inquiry, who's next.

Thus NATO's two most recent members, having joined NATO only after Russia invaded Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Russia made tons of "ultimatums", ever since 2014 when the mass murders started.
Russia did not start to invade until 2022, after Zelensky cut off all communications with Moscow.

What you need to remember is that there was no violence until 2014, when the US bribed Maidan Coup took over.
There was no violence at all before that, when the pro-Russian government had been voted it.
 
sear said:
I'm not an expert on it, but seems to me an "ultimatum" without substantial or devastating consequence is merely a suggestion.


Don't you hate it when the doorbell rings at the worst possible time ... ?
Click to expand...

That is why Russia was forced to finally invade the Ukraine.
From 2014 to 2022 was 8 years of negotiations where Kyiv refused to stop trying to join NATO, murdering ethnic Russians, etc.
 

Russia fires advanced new ballistic missile at Ukraine​

Moscow said the attack was in response to a Ukrainian drone strike on a Putin residence that the U.S. and others said did not happen.
Jan. 9, 2026, 2:25 AM GMT-5 / Updated Jan. 9, 2026 / By Jennifer Jett and Yuliya Talmazan

Russia attacked Ukraine overnight with a new hypersonic ballistic missile, only its second use of an advanced weapon it says can travel up to 10 times the speed of sound and is unstoppable by air defenses.
www.nbcnews.com

Russia attacks Ukraine with new Oreshnik ballistic missile

Moscow said the overnight strike was in response to an alleged Ukrainian drone strike on a residence used by President Vladimir Putin, which the U.S. and others said did not happen.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

a) Russia's use of this "new hypersonic ballistic missile" "it says can travel up to 10 times the speed of sound and is unstoppable by air defenses" is a conspicuous escalation in Russia's War on Ukraine.

b) If Western Europe / NATO / U.S. does not immediately match this escalation to restore approximate weapons parity in this years long War, then it / they / we not merely attract, but invite Russian military invasion and attempted conquest beyond Ukraine. And aggressive others including China are watching closely.

Pappy told me, "the best defense is a good offense". And in hope of not having to relearn this costly lesson, the best time to snuff out a wildfire conflagration is while it's still on the match.
 
sear said:

Russia fires advanced new ballistic missile at Ukraine​

Moscow said the attack was in response to a Ukrainian drone strike on a Putin residence that the U.S. and others said did not happen.
Jan. 9, 2026, 2:25 AM GMT-5 / Updated Jan. 9, 2026 / By Jennifer Jett and Yuliya Talmazan

Russia attacked Ukraine overnight with a new hypersonic ballistic missile, only its second use of an advanced weapon it says can travel up to 10 times the speed of sound and is unstoppable by air defenses.
www.nbcnews.com

Russia attacks Ukraine with new Oreshnik ballistic missile

Moscow said the overnight strike was in response to an alleged Ukrainian drone strike on a residence used by President Vladimir Putin, which the U.S. and others said did not happen.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

a) Russia's use of this "new hypersonic ballistic missile" "it says can travel up to 10 times the speed of sound and is unstoppable by air defenses" is a conspicuous escalation in Russia's War on Ukraine.

b) If Western Europe / NATO / U.S. does not immediately match this escalation to restore approximate weapons parity in this years long War, then it / they / we not merely attract, but invite Russian military invasion and attempted conquest beyond Ukraine. And aggressive others including China are watching closely.

Pappy told me, "the best defense is a good offense". And in hope of not having to relearn this costly lesson, the best time to snuff out a wildfire conflagration is while it's still on the match.
Click to expand...

But the problem is the Ukraine government is the violator, with over half a dozen blatant treaty violations.
Even having all these US weapons is a violation.

Clearly the Ukraine had no significant missiles, planes, or even tanks when this started.
All the weapons being used against Russia are US weapons, and likely most are being controlled by US personnel.
In fact, it is entirely US satellites that allow these weapons to be used at all.
So this is not actually a war between Russia and the Ukraine, but Russia and an invading puppet US force.
 
Rigby5 said:
"But the problem is the Ukraine government is the violator, with over half a dozen blatant treaty violations." R5 #245
Click to expand...
And Russia's military invasion / occupation / territorial conquest is the proper, lawful response?
 
sear said:
And Russia's military invasion / occupation / territorial conquest is the proper, lawful response?
Click to expand...


When the Azov Battalion is committing mass murder of native Ukrainians over their Russian accent, then yes, that requires military invasion / occupation / territorial conquest.
Instead of prosecuting the Azov Battalion, the ethnic Polish generals in Kyiv had then given legal status and incorporated them into their military.

When Kyiv tries to join an alliance hostile to Russia, that also requires military invasion / occupation / territorial conquest.

When Kyiv tries to prevent Russian use of Sevastopol, the only warm water port for Russia, then that also requires military invasion / occupation / territorial conquest.

These provocations and illegal treaty violations started in 2014, so since Russia did not act until 2022, clearly Russia tried alternative means of resolution as much as anyone could possibly expect.
 
sear said:

Russia fires advanced new ballistic missile at Ukraine​

Moscow said the attack was in response to a Ukrainian drone strike on a Putin residence that the U.S. and others said did not happen.
Jan. 9, 2026, 2:25 AM GMT-5 / Updated Jan. 9, 2026 / By Jennifer Jett and Yuliya Talmazan

Russia attacked Ukraine overnight with a new hypersonic ballistic missile, only its second use of an advanced weapon it says can travel up to 10 times the speed of sound and is unstoppable by air defenses.
www.nbcnews.com

Russia attacks Ukraine with new Oreshnik ballistic missile

Moscow said the overnight strike was in response to an alleged Ukrainian drone strike on a residence used by President Vladimir Putin, which the U.S. and others said did not happen.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

a) Russia's use of this "new hypersonic ballistic missile" "it says can travel up to 10 times the speed of sound and is unstoppable by air defenses" is a conspicuous escalation in Russia's War on Ukraine.

b) If Western Europe / NATO / U.S. does not immediately match this escalation to restore approximate weapons parity in this years long War, then it / they / we not merely attract, but invite Russian military invasion and attempted conquest beyond Ukraine. And aggressive others including China are watching closely.

Pappy told me, "the best defense is a good offense". And in hope of not having to relearn this costly lesson, the best time to snuff out a wildfire conflagration is while it's still on the match.
Click to expand...

Clearly the US has superior conventional weapons to Russia, so if we escalate, then the only alternative left to Russia will be a nuclear response.
Russia can take a nuclear war much better than the US can, and whomever starts the nuclear weapons first has a huge advantage.
So at some point, if the US keeps deliberately fighting this proxy war, pretending to be ethnic Polish Ukrainians, then Russia will have no choice but to utterly destroy the US with a nuclear first strike.
 
Rigby5 said:
"Clearly the US has superior conventional weapons to Russia, so if we escalate, then the only alternative left to Russia will be a nuclear response." R5 #248
Click to expand...
Does the U.S. & or NATO have mach 10X multi-warhead missiles?
The nuclear blackmail aspect of Putin's adventure in Ukraine is unmistakable.
Within the first year Putin stated Russia's right to defend the territory it conquered / occupied from Ukraine included nuclear weapons, because the internationally agreed upon legitimate use of nuclear weapons was for defense.

The West has left the meat grinder setting on puree long enough.
If we don't kick Russia out of Ukraine we reward Putin's lust for conquest, and invite the next round of it, after Russia's preparations for it (now ongoing) are complete.

Rigby5 said:
"So at some point, if the US keeps deliberately fighting this proxy war, pretending to be ethnic Polish Ukrainians, then Russia will have no choice but to utterly destroy the US with a nuclear first strike." R5 #248
Click to expand...
As you know it's called "MAD", mutually assured destruction.
Certainly Russia could empty her nuclear arsenal anywhere she likes. BUT !!
With out nuclear triad, the notion of a preemptive strike is impossible.

The United States submarine force consists of four operational classes – Ohio, Los Angeles, Seawolf, and Virginia – all of which are nuclear-powered.1 The Ohio-class consists of 14 SSBNs that serve as the sea-based leg of the U.S. nuclear triad.2 An additional four Ohio-class submarines are configured as SSGNs that possess both strike and Special Forces insertion capabilities. The other three operational classes — Virginia, Seawolf, and Los Angeles – are composed of SSN attack submarines tasked with engaging and destroying enemy vessels; supporting onshore operations and carrier groups; and carrying out surveillance.

Total Submarines in Fleet: 713
  • Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs): 14
  • Nuclear-Powered attack submarines (SSNs): 53
  • Guided Missile Submarines (SSGN): 4
  • Diesel-electric attack submarines (SSKs): 0
  • Air-independent propulsion submarines (AIPs): 0
Each nuclear-powered Columbia-class submarine will carry up to 16 Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).

www.nti.org

United States Submarine Capabilities

Overview of the United States' submarine capabilities and import-export behavior.
www.nti.org www.nti.org
 
sear said:
Does the U.S. & or NATO have mach 10X multi-warhead missiles?
The nuclear blackmail aspect of Putin's adventure in Ukraine is unmistakable.
Within the first year Putin stated Russia's right to defend the territory it conquered / occupied from Ukraine included nuclear weapons, because the internationally agreed upon legitimate use of nuclear weapons was for defense.

The West has left the meat grinder setting on puree long enough.
If we don't kick Russia out of Ukraine we reward Putin's lust for conquest, and invite the next round of it, after Russia's preparations for it (now ongoing) are complete.


As you know it's called "MAD", mutually assured destruction.
Certainly Russia could empty her nuclear arsenal anywhere she likes. BUT !!
With out nuclear triad, the notion of a preemptive strike is impossible.

The United States submarine force consists of four operational classes – Ohio, Los Angeles, Seawolf, and Virginia – all of which are nuclear-powered.1 The Ohio-class consists of 14 SSBNs that serve as the sea-based leg of the U.S. nuclear triad.2 An additional four Ohio-class submarines are configured as SSGNs that possess both strike and Special Forces insertion capabilities. The other three operational classes — Virginia, Seawolf, and Los Angeles – are composed of SSN attack submarines tasked with engaging and destroying enemy vessels; supporting onshore operations and carrier groups; and carrying out surveillance.

Total Submarines in Fleet: 713
  • Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs): 14
  • Nuclear-Powered attack submarines (SSNs): 53
  • Guided Missile Submarines (SSGN): 4
  • Diesel-electric attack submarines (SSKs): 0
  • Air-independent propulsion submarines (AIPs): 0
Each nuclear-powered Columbia-class submarine will carry up to 16 Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).

www.nti.org

United States Submarine Capabilities

Overview of the United States' submarine capabilities and import-export behavior.
www.nti.org www.nti.org
Click to expand...


While Russia's nuclear submarine fleet is smaller than ours, their submarines are much larger and carry more nuclear warheads.
{...
Russia has approximately 64 to 65 submarines in its navy. This includes various classes of submarines, making it one of the largest submarine fleets in the world.
...}
Each Russian sub has from 40 to 96 nuclear warheads.
Not only does Russia have a nuclear triad, but supposedly China and India do as well?

But ultimately is it not a question of who has the greatest nuclear force, but instead who has the most to lose from using or not using nuclear force?
By bribing the Maidan Coup of 2014, what the US did was essentially like getting California to secede from the US.
It was beyond what could be considered acceptable.
As bad as a nuclear war would be, it would be better than death by 1000 cuts by doing nothing about this bribed action by the Ukraine.
Russia can survive a nuclear war, but it is the US that can not.
 
Rigby5 said:
"Russia can survive a nuclear war, but it is the US that can not." R5 #250
Click to expand...
Siberia spans 11 time zones?
Problem is, I'm not sure it's got enough photo-synthetic potential to feed the survivors.
And if Russia starts & tries to win WW 3, I'm not sure nations with surplus farm production would be all that eager to trade w/ Russia.

PS
I blame this entire mess on U.S. President GHWB, the elder President Bush.
He's the guy occupying the white house when "the wall" fell.

And the senior Bush having previously been head of the CIA & a WWII vet, Bush should have known enough about the Marshall Plan to have moved in on Gorby on Day 2.
Instead
zero,
leaving the former Soviets to twist in the wind, and finally resort to what they knew best, which is what former Cold War KGB Putin is now attending to.
 
sear said:
Siberia spans 11 time zones?
Problem is, I'm not sure it's got enough photo-synthetic potential to feed the survivors.
And if Russia starts & tries to win WW 3, I'm not sure nations with surplus farm production would be all that eager to trade w/ Russia.

PS
I blame this entire mess on U.S. President GHWB, the elder President Bush.
He's the guy occupying the white house when "the wall" fell.

And the senior Bush having previously been head of the CIA & a WWII vet, Bush should have known enough about the Marshall Plan to have moved in on Gorby on Day 2.
Instead
zero,
leaving the former Soviets to twist in the wind, and finally resort to what they knew best, which is what former Cold War KGB Putin is now attending to.
Click to expand...

If there is a nuclear WWIII, Russia will lose enough consumer population so that it will have more than enough food.
The rural food producers will not be effected.
And Russia is deliberately distributed, shielded, and protected from EMP.

It is the US that uses unshielded electronics and utilities that will all go down.
Not a single cellphone, TV, internet connection, computer, or vehicle in the US will be functional.
 
Shiftless2 said:
The Art of the Deal

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=962868195816786
Click to expand...


I disagree.
The Ukraine originally was all Russian, and Zelensky is not representative the original natives of the Ukraine.
He is a dictator who supported mass murder of the actual natives by the racist Azov Battalion of ethnic Polish, descendants of failed invaders.

It is well documented.
The 2012 election was legal, fair, and put in a pro-Russian government.
The 2014 Maidan Coup was illegal, bribed, and resulted in mass murder, imprisonment, or expulsion of hundreds of thousands of native Ukrainians.
 
The Telegraph
Opinion

Putin’s war economy is on the verge of implosion​

Samuel Ramani / Mon, February 9, 2026 at 1:00 AM EST
Russia’s war economy has sputtered to a grinding halt. New economic data reveals that Russia’s GDP expansion rate slid from 4.9 per cent in 2024 to 1 per cent in 2025, and projections indicate that this sluggish growth trajectory will persist into 2026. To make matters worse for consumers, Russia’s inflation rate remains stubbornly high at 6.4 per cent and interest rates are fixed at 15 per cent.

This perfect storm of negative economic trends comes at the worst possible time for President Vladimir Putin. Russia’s rate of offensive progression in Donbas trails Allied trench warfare in the Battle of the Somme, and 1.2 million Russian men have been killed or injured in frontline combat. While Kremlin propagandists reassure their audiences that Western support for Ukraine will collapse and victory is around the corner, these grim realities cannot be concealed forever.

There are already signs that ordinary Russians are no longer insulated from the war’s economic toll. To finance the war, the Kremlin has been forced to slash spending on health care, aviation parts production and energy facility maintenance. Even soldiers’ benefits have been reduced to fund new rounds of conscription and increased spending on ultranationalist propaganda.

These across-the-board cuts could have devastating economic consequences. The Covid-19 pandemic exposed an underfunding crisis in the Russian medical system, and male life expectancy has ebbed to just 65. The trifecta of ageing demographics, war-induced medical trauma, and healthcare budget cuts will magnify these problems.
news.yahoo.com

Putin’s war economy is on the verge of implosion

Russia’s war economy has sputtered to a grinding halt. New economic data reveals that Russia’s GDP expansion rate slid from 4.9 per cent in 2024 to 1 per cent in 2025, and projections indicate that th...
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com

When / how is it going to end?
 
sear said:
The Telegraph
Opinion

Putin’s war economy is on the verge of implosion​

Samuel Ramani / Mon, February 9, 2026 at 1:00 AM EST
Russia’s war economy has sputtered to a grinding halt. New economic data reveals that Russia’s GDP expansion rate slid from 4.9 per cent in 2024 to 1 per cent in 2025, and projections indicate that this sluggish growth trajectory will persist into 2026. To make matters worse for consumers, Russia’s inflation rate remains stubbornly high at 6.4 per cent and interest rates are fixed at 15 per cent.

This perfect storm of negative economic trends comes at the worst possible time for President Vladimir Putin. Russia’s rate of offensive progression in Donbas trails Allied trench warfare in the Battle of the Somme, and 1.2 million Russian men have been killed or injured in frontline combat. While Kremlin propagandists reassure their audiences that Western support for Ukraine will collapse and victory is around the corner, these grim realities cannot be concealed forever.

There are already signs that ordinary Russians are no longer insulated from the war’s economic toll. To finance the war, the Kremlin has been forced to slash spending on health care, aviation parts production and energy facility maintenance. Even soldiers’ benefits have been reduced to fund new rounds of conscription and increased spending on ultranationalist propaganda.

These across-the-board cuts could have devastating economic consequences. The Covid-19 pandemic exposed an underfunding crisis in the Russian medical system, and male life expectancy has ebbed to just 65. The trifecta of ageing demographics, war-induced medical trauma, and healthcare budget cuts will magnify these problems.
news.yahoo.com

Putin’s war economy is on the verge of implosion

Russia’s war economy has sputtered to a grinding halt. New economic data reveals that Russia’s GDP expansion rate slid from 4.9 per cent in 2024 to 1 per cent in 2025, and projections indicate that th...
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com

When / how is it going to end?
Click to expand...

Planned economies normally never have problems, at least not since the incompetence of Lysenkoism.
So the economic problems in Russia now have to do with the US blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline and illegally sanctioning Russian oil.
What greedy capitalists seem to forget is that when you believe in a republic, that has to be based on all individual rights being protected, not just those of citizens.
 
Rigby5 said:
"Planned economies normally never have problems, at least not since the incompetence of Lysenkoism." R5 #256
Click to expand...
?
My personal opinion is economics is more complex than rocket science.
Webster defines economics as a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services .

Economics is a quantification of human behavior.
That's complicated. And while some politburos supervise this more efficiently than others, the Soviet model famously failed.

China seems more successful, with a few caveats.
a) The Soviet was bloated, and fundamentally ignorant of economics. It was devoured by a monster the Soviets did not understand.
b) China's politburo is far more agile, AND has hybrid capitalist / socialist dynamics.

Rigby5 said:
"So the economic problems in Russia now have to do with the US blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline and illegally sanctioning Russian oil." R5
Click to expand...
?
Has the perpetrator ever been conclusively identified?
The U.S. knew such destruction would be a detriment to U.S.' Western allies and trade partners.
 
sear said:
?
My personal opinion is economics is more complex than rocket science.
Webster defines economics as a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services .

Economics is a quantification of human behavior.
That's complicated. And while some politburos supervise this more efficiently than others, the Soviet model famously failed.

China seems more successful, with a few caveats.
a) The Soviet was bloated, and fundamentally ignorant of economics. It was devoured by a monster the Soviets did not understand.
b) China's politburo is far more agile, AND has hybrid capitalist / socialist dynamics.


?
Has the perpetrator ever been conclusively identified?
The U.S. knew such destruction would be a detriment to U.S.' Western allies and trade partners.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty easy to me.
The easiest way to predict product desirability is through polling.

The illegal economic sanctions the US is imposing in Russia prevent currency exchange through the world banks.
So Russia is totally unable to conduct trade with anyone but Warsaw Pact countries.

The Nord Stream pipeline could not likely have been found or have explosives set at the 300' depth, except by the US.
And US ships were cataloged as being present.

Of course US knew the loss of that pipeline would be very harmful to our allies in Europe, but that is exactly WHY we would have done it.
We then started shipping them natural gas at much higher prices.
 
Rigby5 said:
"Seems pretty easy to me.
The easiest way to predict product desirability is through polling." R5 #258
Click to expand...
And within a capitalist system, that polling is conducted in the marketplace: "supply & demand".

Rigby5 said:
"The illegal economic sanctions the US is imposing in Russia prevent currency exchange through the world banks.
So Russia is totally unable to conduct trade with anyone but Warsaw Pact countries." R5 #258
Click to expand...
Is that a problem?
Seems to me willing business partners that adhere to the rules established for their trade group is entitled to the benefits of such commerce.

Violating those rules subjects eligibility for such trade to sanction.

Rigby5 said:
"The Nord Stream pipeline could not likely have been found or have explosives set at the 300' depth, except by the US.
And US ships were cataloged as being present." R5 #258
Click to expand...
That was during the Biden administration, right?
It doesn't seem like something Biden would be inclined to do.
Biden may not have been the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he knew Russia fed this fuel to our allies in Western Europe.

Rigby5 said:
"The Nord Stream pipeline could not likely have been found or have explosives set at the 300' depth, except by the US.
And US ships were cataloged as being present." R5 #258
Click to expand...
And anyone with the authority to order the U.S. military to do this would have known:
- even laymen like us know that, so
- they're not going to evade being identified as the perpetrator for long

What did it accomplish?
If Russia had thoroughly collapsed, raising a thick, choking cloud of dust, resulting in the immediate total withdrawal of all Russian military troops from Ukraine we might understand.

That didn't happen.
Nothing similar happened.
So, why? Ignorance? Unrealistic expectation?

Rigby5 said:
"We then started shipping them natural gas at much higher prices." R5 #258
Click to expand...
That's an economic benefit.
Is it persuasive evidence it was a decisive element in the decision to conduct the operation?
 
sear said:
And within a capitalist system, that polling is conducted in the marketplace: "supply & demand".


Is that a problem?
Seems to me willing business partners that adhere to the rules established for their trade group is entitled to the benefits of such commerce.

Violating those rules subjects eligibility for such trade to sanction.


That was during the Biden administration, right?
It doesn't seem like something Biden would be inclined to do.
Biden may not have been the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he knew Russia fed this fuel to our allies in Western Europe.


And anyone with the authority to order the U.S. military to do this would have known:
- even laymen like us know that, so
- they're not going to evade being identified as the perpetrator for long

What did it accomplish?
If Russia had thoroughly collapsed, raising a thick, choking cloud of dust, resulting in the immediate total withdrawal of all Russian military troops from Ukraine we might understand.

That didn't happen.
Nothing similar happened.
So, why? Ignorance? Unrealistic expectation?


That's an economic benefit.
Is it persuasive evidence it was a decisive element in the decision to conduct the operation?
Click to expand...

Supply & demand does not work in the US market place dominated by monopolies.
Like with health care where you prepay insurance as they say or be denied any access at all.
Back in the 1960s you could buy cars getting 50 mpg for $1.5k that were easy to work on compared to the electronic nightmares they now start at $30k.
The cars they sell are not what people really want, but the makers have used EPA rules to greatly increase their emissions and make cars much bigger than they should be.
They do not test total emissions, but parts per million, greatly selecting for larger cars that pollute much more.
Cars now last 10 years instead of 35 like they used to.

The rules of the trade groups are illegal, based on extortion.
For example, sanctioning Venezuela for daring to claim ownership of their own oil, instead of letting US companies steal it.
Economic sanctions are just totally criminal, violating every principle of the Bill of Rights.

Biden was an awful president because he was the most willing to take bribes in exchange for illegal acts like blowing up the Nord Stream Pipeline.
Remember it was Hunter Biden who likely was the bag man for cash bribes for the Maidan Coup in the Ukraine in 2014.
Looking back at speeches when he supported racism and illegal wars, it is pretty clear he was on the take all along.

You keep mentioning how Russia was fueling out allies, but that is the last thing the US would want, since it would increase cooperation and profits between Russia our allies.
The US would want to blow that up, to extort our allies into following only whatever we say.
We then could charge whatever we wanted for our shipped LNG, and for our "allies" to cheer whatever we wanted then to.

Things like placing explosives on the Nord Stream pipeline would be totally secret.
We have lots of secret operatives, like SEAL teams, that do whatever they are told, and the public is never knows.
For example, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was actually caused by SEAL teams illegally murdering local politicians in North Vietnam.
Which is a war crime that no one ever cared or wrote about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top