It seemed odd at first viewing. Also, even if it were possible, what practically could Germany or the UK do if Russian invades again? The only serious security guarantees for Ukraine would be given by NATO in my view, and that is a non-starter.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
NATO can amend their rules and add Ukraine as an adjunct country who qualify for article 5 protection, despite not being in NATO. At a minimum, there are creative ways to get around Putin's paranoid obsession with Ukrainian NATO membership.
Russia apparently willing to discuss moving troops out of the Kiev area, in a totally genuine offer that is unrelated to all the troops around Kiev being pushed back already.
Absolutely. It makes you realise how shit the Soviet Union was to Baltic countries and Ukraine if they saw an enemy-of-my-enemy dictatorship as a temporary ally.
Chris Rock and Rhianna’s panties are coming to mind.
The Ukrainians should't fall for it, since all that it would accomplish is allow Putin to reposition his northern Ukrainian troops into the east and south.
They will not fall for it. I am sure that the intelligence that the West are providing along with analytics generate tons of vital data that allow Ukranian government make correct decisions. F...ck lilliputin.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Whatever is necessary to ensure Ukraine's protection by NATO in the future needs to be done. They have been betrayed, after becoming a non-nuclear state and are now in ruins. Look at the German minister of finance's reaction on the first day of invasion. What a horrible c..nt
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited by a moderator:
Happy New Year
Russian speak for "the number of casualties are getting too many".
That's on Russian territory. Not sure about that move..
Well, it's no different to the Russians firing from Russia into Ukraine (other than that they're actually aiming at a military target). As long as feet don't cross the border and they're not aiming at civilians it's hard to argue it's a particularly antagonistic move.
Military targets are fair game.
Why not?
Its no different than the Russians repeatedly doing the exact same thing to Ukrainian sites over the past 5 weeks. There is after all a war going on.
Think its the 3rd target in Russia they've hit? Airfield and another ammo dump?
I agree but this is definitely a move that technically allows for the use of big, bad weapons.
It's a question if it's smart and might be used as an excuse by the Russians who are struggling in conventional warfare and not whether its fair game (of course, it is).
Phosphorus bombs have been already fired at Ukraine. Mariupol encircled and people are starving. Well fecking done for hitting an ammo depot.
I think we have to assume that any agreement would allow for Ukraine to continue to receive defensive weapons - except this time, given enough time enough for training, these could include very sophisticated ground-to-air defence systems covering all altitude ranges, plus sophisticated anti-ship missile systems, and more.
@Rightnr
Ukraine are holding a defensive position. Hitting an ammo depot is a defensive action whether on Russian soil or not. They’re not invading Russia nor targeting civilians.
Ukraine are holding a defensive position. Hitting an ammo depot is a defensive action whether on Russian soil or not. They’re not invading Russia nor targeting civilians.
I don't think it allows for use of more destructive weapons when you consider that Putin is losing this campaign and is slowly getting economically choked from within. His tendency therefore is to deescalate, which is what he appears to be doing now. Even if he repositions Kyiv troops elsewhere, it will be broadly viewed as a capitulation.
Dead right. It also makes it harder for Russian propaganda to deny there's a war going on when the 400,000 inhabitants of that city see massive explosions lighting up their night sky - there's no way Putin will be able to stop news of this spreading rapidly across Russia,
They’ve already done a couple. What are they supposed to do?
I don't know but with Putin you just never know and that was my point.
Basically, I don't have experience dealing with a lunatic.
Hopefully that depot was stuffed to the gills with fresh supplies of shells and missiles that Putin was hoping to bring into Ukraine.
Those actors, man.
I'd also be laughing my ass off even more if I'm working in the blood special effects department in the movie industry.For as long as that's a hit on a military target far away from civilians, it's very fair game. I'm sure that target came from intel sharing between Ukraine and NATO, and the Ukrainians wouldn't hit it unless there's a confirmed safe distance from civilian areas.
A look at Daleep Singh's sanctions on Putin
The Pentagon Press Secretary claims that weapons (etc) are being supplied - "pouring in" - to the defenders of Mariupol. How that can be true, given that the city is besieged on all sides, with only some of the central areas still holding out?
Please don't assume that Putin is a lunatic, he most likely isn't. He is following outdated philosophies about reasons and justifications for war that are better suited to Europes 18th/19th century and he was most likely heavily misinformed about the state of Russia's and Ukraine's military, but that doesn't make him a lunatic.
Ukraine has to flatten a few Russian cities and cause over 3 million Russian refuges, inside Russia ... and only after that we could say that the two countries are even.
Actually they would still not be even, because Russia started all this.
Not sure how saying someone using tactics from two centuries ago disproves the point about being a lunatic (at least in the loose sense of the word).
To be honest, a country leader who reads too much into stuff from old centuries with no lessons worthy for the current modern reality has to be lunatic to an extent. It's quite the total opposite of John F. Kennedy, who read The Guns of August as his source of inspiration behind every single decision in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis in order to not bungle into a war.
I didn't say anything about tactics. My point was that he sees war as a legit extension of diplomacy in true Clausewitz tradition. That isn't even uncommon, most US military actions follow the same philosophy. It's only unusual to see them applied in Europe again.
Putin is the proto-typical fecked-up macho-man. He lives in a fantasy world, completely lost in fantasies of what he imagines "strength", "masculinity" and "glory" to be.
Hence, for instance, the Russian law of 2017 that decriminalised some forms of domestic abuse, even though Russian interior ministry statistics showed that 9,800 women died as a result of a serious assault in 2015, and that a quarter of murders and serious assaults take place in the home.
Nord Stream appears to be working stable, no decrease visible so far: https://www.nord-stream.info/
You are right, just saw it was posted 6 hours ago, guess it would have been a bigger news if it was something very remarkable.
Why? Are Russia going to declare war on them after this?