X

187 posts

X banner
X

X

@ASOFRN

Toronto, Ontario Katılım Temmuz 2021
107 Takip Edilen51 Takipçiler
X
X@ASOFRN·
@SteelersNetwork Ceiling is like 5tds 600 yds He’s gonna have Aaron Rodgers man. Ain’t winning OROY
English
0
0
0
61
X
X@ASOFRN·
@VytautasTheGrrr Take Trump for example, I promise you. If he dragged American troops to the defense of Europe, and sent the sons of daughters of Texas and California to die for fucking Estonia, he wouldn’t be President for much longer.
English
0
0
0
103
X
X@ASOFRN·
@VytautasTheGrrr You can’t change the mind of our liberal democracies. They don’t have the balls to win real wars anymore. All their dialogue, nothing. Any leader that would plunge them EVEN to a defensive war would be shunned for even “allowing it to get to this point”
English
1
0
1
104
Vytautas The Great
Vytautas The Great@VytautasTheGrrr·
"Russia risks nothing". Just: - Article 5. - Actual WW3. - Drawing Belarus into a war. - Losing access to the Baltic Sea. - Blockades on Kaliningrad. - Further death and destruction for its military. This is clickbait at this stage.
Roman Sheremeta 🇺🇸🇺🇦@rshereme

An attack on the Baltic states is entirely plausible, and here’s why. There are at least three reasons. First and foremost: russia risks nothing. No matter how events unfold with the occupation of the Baltic countries, things will not get worse for russia. Sanctions are already in place. Europe no longer buys its oil or gas. Weapons are being supplied to Ukraine. From a purely military perspective, russia also risks nothing. It has nuclear weapons, so if it wins and occupies the Baltics, or even parts of them, no one will be able to push it out. And if it loses, it will not lose its own territory. It will simply retreat to its borders, and NATO will not invade russian territory because of those same nuclear weapons. So why not try? Second reason: the goals of the war. The objectives of russia go far beyond the occupation of the Baltics. Above all, russia is interested in weakening or dismantling NATO and the EU. From this perspective, any territorial gain in the Baltics would count as a victory. Even if russia does not capture Vilnius or Tallinn, but only a few border villages, that would still be a win, because it would demonstrate NATO’s inability to defend its members. So again, why not try? Third reason: russia has sufficient forces and resources in the potential conflict zone to carry out military objectives and achieve an acceptable outcome. In the Leningrad Military District, there is a combat-ready army of around 70,000 troops, which can easily be reinforced with reserves from the Ukrainian front. This army is mechanized, with around 700 tanks and a large amount of armored equipment. Separately, I would highlight the drone component, which has no real equivalent in NATO and could significantly shift the balance of power in the event of an invasion. If the forces are sufficient, then why not try? Thus, as of now, we are facing the following situation: russia has enough forces and resources to achieve its goals in the Baltics, and it does not face a bad scenario under any development of events. The situation is very similar to the one before the invasion of Ukraine, especially considering the law that allows putin to “protect russians abroad,” which was quickly introduced in the State Duma. The Baltic states have helped us more than anyone else, so I sincerely hope our friends will not face war. But to preserve peace, one must prepare for a major war. It is very good that our Baltic friends have learned from Ukraine’s mistakes and have built defensive lines and fortifications to repel an invasion. I very much hope that russia will break its teeth on the Baltics, just as it did on Ukraine. Source: translated and adopted from Serhii Marchenko

English
119
83
1.9K
85.4K
X
X@ASOFRN·
@VytautasTheGrrr Can any of the nations I just mentioned protect their own right to sovereignty or did they need their daddies to come and say “hey, don’t pick on lil Timmy. We like Legos and Waffles, they’re cute!” If public opinion turned, they’d be integrated without any means of repose.
English
0
0
0
74
X
X@ASOFRN·
@VytautasTheGrrr I wouldn’t suggest now would be a great time for them at all. But once US/Europe pressure the end of the war and Ukraine gives up a chunk of its land, give them ~5,10 years and they’re back in business. It doesn’t take elite units to broker hostages.
English
1
0
0
126
Vytautas The Great
Vytautas The Great@VytautasTheGrrr·
@ASOFRN So based on your logic Russia, who has most of its elite unites locked in in Ukraine would just steamroll the Baltic States with no effort? Doesn't follow common sense but I won't call you retarded for it.
English
1
0
1
161
X
X@ASOFRN·
@VytautasTheGrrr Sooner or later you guys will realize that countries like Lithuania, Denmark, Belgium only exist because larger more powerful nations allow them to out out of the novelty of statehood, nothing more. They aren’t owed existence and won’t one day.
English
1
0
0
21
Vytautas The Great
Vytautas The Great@VytautasTheGrrr·
@ASOFRN I honestly think that they would adhere to the requirements of Article 5. If that doesn't happen, Poland would enter the war regardless because its defense is integrated with the defense of the Baltic States. Other countries would follow.
English
2
0
1
48
X
X@ASOFRN·
@VytautasTheGrrr I don’t think so. The Russian mass build up of hostages would cause capitulation by the West, they’d ask for bites and chunks first. Continue to trade with the other “bad guys,” and strike again once their munitions are filled.
English
1
0
0
11
X
X@ASOFRN·
@VytautasTheGrrr Once those bdes are wiped out, the maximum response you’d see is carries, missiles, jets, no more ground troops. Would be ridiculously unpopular. And once Russia turns those states into battle grounds, youll have British/Americans bombing Baltic land that the Rus are on. Win.
English
1
0
0
139
Vytautas The Great
Vytautas The Great@VytautasTheGrrr·
@ASOFRN How do you "strong word" yourself out of getting your own people killed exactly?
Vytautas The Great tweet media
English
4
0
5
587
X
X@ASOFRN·
@VytautasTheGrrr What point do you think I’m trying to make? Reread my comment. Article 5 is a sham.
English
0
0
0
19
X
X@ASOFRN·
@Complex probably because it’s ass
English
0
0
0
135
FraziersBurgh✝️
FraziersBurgh✝️@MinkahBurgh39·
Rodgers Warren/Rico DK/Pittman/Tyson Muth/Darnell Cook/ Brod Bisontis Frazier Mccormick Fautanu
FraziersBurgh✝️ tweet media
English
42
8
183
13.1K
X
X@ASOFRN·
ye will always make good music
English
0
0
0
36
X
X@ASOFRN·
@jack_sperry Why are we trying to repeat and live in the shadow of a single success story from the GOAT instead of writing our own story?Rodgers won’t win you the chip. You’re ruining your draft pick.
English
0
0
0
83
Jack Sperry
Jack Sperry@jack_sperry·
Aaron Rodgers' stats in his age 42 season with 1 legitimate starting WR in DK Metcalf (2025): ⬇️ - COMP%: 65.7 - YPA: 6.7 - TD: 24 - INT: 7 - Passer Rating: 94.8 Tom Brady's stats in his age 42 season with 1 legitimate starting WR in Julian Edelman (2019): ⬇️ - COMP%: 60.8 - YPA: 6.6 - TD: 24 - INT: 9 - Passer Rating: 88.0 Tom Brady's stats in his age 43 season when he got better play-calling & weapons in Tampa (2020): ⬇️ - COMP%: 65.7 - YPA: 7.6 - TD: 40 - INT: 12 - Passer Rating: 102.2 Don't tell me giving a non-mobile pocket passer with high-end football IQ & arm talent a legit offensive play-caller & weapons doesn't matter... If there's any QB in NFL history that could feasibly recreate Brady's success this deep into his career, I think it would be Rodgers with the proper supporting cast around him (which the Steelers are currently trying to build). And if bringing back Rodgers doesn't work this year, you give Will Howard a shot at the end of the year if the playoffs aren't a possibility & if Will doesn't earn the 2027 starting job by the end of the year, you can just draft your next franchise QB in what is supposed to be a QB-rich 2027 draft class. People seem to think of Rodgers as the high floor/low ceiling option at QB for Pittsburgh, but I think Rodgers not only provides them the highest floor of any QB at their disposal (they went 10-7 with him at QB last year with a bottom 3 WR room & an underperforming defense), but he also provides them the highest possible (somewhat realistic) ceiling as well, while also providing very little long-term risk to the franchise as he'd likely be playing on a cheap, 1-year contract again. I get people are sick of the waiting game (I am as well), but as long as Rodgers eventually signs on (which appears incredibly likely like it did last year), that's not really going to matter once we get to Week 1.
Jack Sperry tweet mediaJack Sperry tweet mediaJack Sperry tweet media
English
16
9
73
5.5K
X
X@ASOFRN·
mild and meek, the tender and sweetest hearts win at life
English
0
0
0
16