Is Ukraine about to have a war?
That is why it is so dumb to separate Ukrainians by ethnicity, it is the same idiocy that caused the US to lose Iraq, focusing on religious affiliation rather than actual effectiveness.
Categorization just divides people who are all in one tent and who should be, in the words of the late LBJ, pi**ing out rather than getting cast a out and doing the opposite.
Etudiant - are you suggesting that people should all be in one large country rather than a lot of smaller ones?
All those Canadians might disagree.
All those Canadians might disagree.
Ukraine had its borders shifted west after WW2, so it has lots of minorities that need to be tied into the national consciousness. That's a tough job, did not work for Tito's successors in Yugoslavia.
It sure won't work if the minorities are treated as second class citizens, a situation that almost broke up Canada because the Francophone community felt marginalized.
https://english.pravda.ru/news/world...a_usa_nuclear/
I wonder what he has been sniffing? I doubt many on any side would survive, the blokes a cocking idiot.
I wonder what he has been sniffing? I doubt many on any side would survive, the blokes a cocking idiot.
Even the dumbest id**t must be aware what >7000 Nuclear Warheads -each between 10 and 500 times the Oompf of the Hiroshima Bomb- will leave of our nice Blue Plant.
Surprised though that this kind of silliness: 'your rubble will bounce higher than ours:, can pass even minimal editorial review.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Defence Minister made a statement about providing support to Ukraine in the HoC this afternoon as flights were taking place.
Flights avoiding German airspace.
Flights avoiding German airspace.
4000 Warheads would be sufficient to even honor small Russian Villages individually with their personal Hiroshima Bomb.
The 400 - 450 British and French Nuclear warheads alone would be enough to wipe out all Russian cities with more than 50.000 Inhabitants with more than half of the Russian population.
This Guy should maybe do a reality check.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Well there’s good news and bad news.
The good news, if you go back a few posts, is that the one th8ng that Russia and the USA agreed is tha5 neither side would use nukes over any war in Europe.
The bad news is that that gets rid of the escalation ladder that was implicit in Flexible Response with battlefield nukes under battalion level control. And, whilst forces on both sides are far lower than during the Cold War, NATO forces, as revealed in war games, would be obliterated in attempt to defend the Baltic States, and possibly well beyond.
No one is asserting NATO would go to war over Kiev, but it is committed to d9 so over Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius.
Going back to the Yes Prime Minister deterrent scenario. Would the UK or France go nuclear in defence of any or all of them?
Which, of course, is why the Baltic states and Poland are so insistent they want more NATO troops deployed forward to where they would be a5 risk and provide a deterrent to attack.
The good news, if you go back a few posts, is that the one th8ng that Russia and the USA agreed is tha5 neither side would use nukes over any war in Europe.
The bad news is that that gets rid of the escalation ladder that was implicit in Flexible Response with battlefield nukes under battalion level control. And, whilst forces on both sides are far lower than during the Cold War, NATO forces, as revealed in war games, would be obliterated in attempt to defend the Baltic States, and possibly well beyond.
No one is asserting NATO would go to war over Kiev, but it is committed to d9 so over Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius.
Going back to the Yes Prime Minister deterrent scenario. Would the UK or France go nuclear in defence of any or all of them?
Which, of course, is why the Baltic states and Poland are so insistent they want more NATO troops deployed forward to where they would be a5 risk and provide a deterrent to attack.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,855
Received 2,809 Likes
on
1,196 Posts
Nothing like folding your hand in a game of poker....They didn't object to US and UK troops defending their country at the height of the Cold War though did they..
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...d=winp1taskbar
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...d=winp1taskbar
The German government briefed that threats to exclude Russia from the Swift system are to be dropped over fears it could destabilise international markets, according to Handelsblatt newspaper.
But the US pushed back against the claim, insisting “no option is off the table” in the event of Russian aggression.
The signs of division come amid reports Anthony Blinken, the US secretary of state, is to fly to Berlin on Thursday for urgent talks with Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor.
Annalena Baerbock, the German foreign minister, is set for talks with the Russian government in Moscow on Tuesday.
The West has threatened to block Russia from the Swift system, effectively cutting it off from international payments, if it attacks Ukraine.
But the US pushed back against the claim, insisting “no option is off the table” in the event of Russian aggression.
The signs of division come amid reports Anthony Blinken, the US secretary of state, is to fly to Berlin on Thursday for urgent talks with Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor.
Annalena Baerbock, the German foreign minister, is set for talks with the Russian government in Moscow on Tuesday.
The West has threatened to block Russia from the Swift system, effectively cutting it off from international payments, if it attacks Ukraine.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Interesting article explaining Russian motives - and possible target of an6 attack….
“….Seizing and occupying territory could be a means of raising pressure on Kyiv, but occupying terrain would not be the ultimate objective. If Russia had sought to occupy more territory, the past few weeks of public ultimatums would have been counterproductive, simply giving Ukraine and NATO more time to prepare. Some analyses have mentioned potential options to seize a land bridge between the Donbas and Crimea, an operation in Odessa, or even an attempt at occupying Western Ukraine. If the purpose is to compel Ukraine’s leadership, then a ground invasion only makes sense if it puts Ukraine in a more untenable or threatened position. Neither a land bridge nor an operation in Odessa would likely achieve that result, but an offensive towards Kyiv could.
The current posture of Russian forces points to a ground invasion towards the Ukrainian capital as a more likely option. Compared to the spring, when many of the reinforcements were sent to Crimea, Russia has now deployed a significant share of its forces, primarily the 41st Combined Arms Army, to Yelnya, to the north of Ukraine. These are in addition to the 1st Tank Army units deployed to Pogonovo, 100 miles to the northeast of Ukraine’s border. Kyiv is approximately 110 miles from the northern border with Russia, and Moscow is deploying its reinforcements in the regions where they could launch offensives from Ukraine’s northern and northeastern borders. Russia has also begun moving equipment to smaller encampments near the border in the Bryansk, Belgorod, and Kursk regions. The transfer of Russian units to Belarus for the upcoming exercise increases the threat posed along Ukraine’s northern border.
The most likely ground offensive option is that the Russian military would focus on destroying Ukrainian military units east of the Dnieper River, inflicting casualties, taking prisoners of war, destroying military equipment, and degrading defense capabilities. This could include a planned withdrawal — a punitive raid —possibly after one or two weeks. It could also involve occupying terrain outside Kyiv and threatening the capital unless Russia’s demands are met. Such an operation would more closely resemble a more aggressive version of Russia’s war in Georgia in 2008 than its annexation of Crimea. By inflicting heavy losses on the Ukrainian military, taking prisoners of war, and degrading Kyiv’s defense capabilities, Russia could potentially alter Zelensky’s incentive structure sufficiently to induce painful concessions. An additional benefit of such an operation is that it would likely be less costly and would not require Russian forces to enter cities, which would increase the risk of civilian casualties and make an insurgency more effective…..”
“….Seizing and occupying territory could be a means of raising pressure on Kyiv, but occupying terrain would not be the ultimate objective. If Russia had sought to occupy more territory, the past few weeks of public ultimatums would have been counterproductive, simply giving Ukraine and NATO more time to prepare. Some analyses have mentioned potential options to seize a land bridge between the Donbas and Crimea, an operation in Odessa, or even an attempt at occupying Western Ukraine. If the purpose is to compel Ukraine’s leadership, then a ground invasion only makes sense if it puts Ukraine in a more untenable or threatened position. Neither a land bridge nor an operation in Odessa would likely achieve that result, but an offensive towards Kyiv could.
The current posture of Russian forces points to a ground invasion towards the Ukrainian capital as a more likely option. Compared to the spring, when many of the reinforcements were sent to Crimea, Russia has now deployed a significant share of its forces, primarily the 41st Combined Arms Army, to Yelnya, to the north of Ukraine. These are in addition to the 1st Tank Army units deployed to Pogonovo, 100 miles to the northeast of Ukraine’s border. Kyiv is approximately 110 miles from the northern border with Russia, and Moscow is deploying its reinforcements in the regions where they could launch offensives from Ukraine’s northern and northeastern borders. Russia has also begun moving equipment to smaller encampments near the border in the Bryansk, Belgorod, and Kursk regions. The transfer of Russian units to Belarus for the upcoming exercise increases the threat posed along Ukraine’s northern border.
The most likely ground offensive option is that the Russian military would focus on destroying Ukrainian military units east of the Dnieper River, inflicting casualties, taking prisoners of war, destroying military equipment, and degrading defense capabilities. This could include a planned withdrawal — a punitive raid —possibly after one or two weeks. It could also involve occupying terrain outside Kyiv and threatening the capital unless Russia’s demands are met. Such an operation would more closely resemble a more aggressive version of Russia’s war in Georgia in 2008 than its annexation of Crimea. By inflicting heavy losses on the Ukrainian military, taking prisoners of war, and degrading Kyiv’s defense capabilities, Russia could potentially alter Zelensky’s incentive structure sufficiently to induce painful concessions. An additional benefit of such an operation is that it would likely be less costly and would not require Russian forces to enter cities, which would increase the risk of civilian casualties and make an insurgency more effective…..”
Sounds like the Chinese in 1962 in the Himalayas - problem is it only defers the problems - not solve them
A war might be a good thing . The latest ceasefire is still holding , but if those Ukrainian “ Journalists” start shelling again towards civilian population again . Then we might see a different response .
What is Russia up to? Why would they burn all bridges to the West? This looks like possibly aiming beyond Ukraine? Wouldn't they almost force Sweden and maybe even Finland to want to join NATO? What then? Would they feel permitted to intervene there as well?
Time for some clear messages it seems.
Time for some clear messages it seems.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,855
Received 2,809 Likes
on
1,196 Posts
That time should have been about the invasion of Georgia who wanted to join NATO and were providing peacekeepers.
I have to agree. So we should not miss a warranted reaction this time.
It is still highly concerning what sort of desperation brings Russia to act like this?
It is still highly concerning what sort of desperation brings Russia to act like this?
A war might be a good thing . The latest ceasefire is still holding , but if those Ukrainian “ Journalists” start shelling again towards civilian population again . Then we might see a different response .