US also has its Air Force. I am sure that USAF can decimate any tanks out there with zero loses, and without needing any Javelins or artillery or anything else. They should give to Ukraine any long range artillery they need. Also, I hope they are training Ukrainian pilots to use F-16s since this war will not end anytime soon.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
To be fair, what NATO has above everything is an overwhelming air and naval force. And none of these assets have been given to Ukraine. You'd think if a European NATO member were attacked, it would be very hard for the attacker to deploy tanks or artillery on forward positions. Because the defenders will have complete control of the skies and seas, so it would be raining bombs on the attackers. Javelins won't be as essential as they are to the Ukrainians who, in the absence of Air Force or Navy, are basically fighting an exclusively infantry & artillery battle.
Last edited:
wouldn't even say he is that.
I agree. In relaiton to US presidents the phrase "It ain't matter the colour of the drug dealer or the pimp"
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That will mean a field day for Ukrainian forces if they can find a window of opportunity to push back, attack and then conquer separatist territories that have no one among locals left to defend those.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That's a Barrett .50 BMG rifle. I say that's either the M82 or the militarized M107, but I'm surprised they could fit a silencer on that.
I shot an M82 one time but I don’t remember it being that big (not taking the silencer into account).
What should governments do about that, start boarding Russian ships?
Putin has to be stopped, people dieing in Africa and elsewhere because of this is unfortunate. Maybe their governments should be applying pressure on Russia to withdraw.
Well, sending help to those affected with the same enthusiasm they send weapons to Ukraine would be a good start. Helping refugees from countries affected by putin's terrorist food policies with the same enthusiasm we help ukranian refugees would be a great step two.
I don't think Somalia, Yemen and Ethiopia have the power to apply any kind of pressure on Russia, so I don't think they should waste their time.
Pretty much this.
At some point, all Western nations that can and want to transfer that Ukrainian grain to poorer countries have to treat this situation the same way as North America did during the Battle of the Atlantic. Those Western nations also have the require naval power to keep Russia honest. The aim is to get supplies through to those in need - those with no naval nor economical power to apply any pressure on Russia.
Meaning a lot of the kills for Ukraine were other Ukranians instead of Russians. Putin will happily send every Ukranian in territory he controls to their death, if they kill some other Ukranians it's a bonus.
Sadly won't happen, we're just racist to the core.
I would have thought it was possible to get that food from elsewhere but I know feck all about that tbh.
Traditionally refugees flee the most to neighboring countries where they are safe, but no doubt there is a double standard.
Last edited:
Ukrainians will never accept another fake peace with Putin
by Svitlana Morenets
Two months ago, I became one of the 80,000 Ukrainian refugees who have settled in Britain. The kindness I’ve been shown, by my host family and so many others, has been overwhelming. People are caring, but curious too. They ask how long Zelensky will really fight for. By which I suspect they mean: surely you guys don’t think you can actually win? Why prolong the bloodshed?
It’s a good question. By some estimates, nearly 80 per cent of the Russian army is in my country right now. We’re tiny by comparison with Russia and fighting alone, though with donated weapons. Officially, up to 1,000 Ukrainian soldiers are killed or wounded each day in eastern Ukraine. Unofficially, many more. My father, who is 53, could be called up any time. My seven-year-old brother is still at home. Why don’t I long for a ceasefire? Why doesn’t Zelensky?
To understand Ukraine – and the President’s position – you need to understand that war is not new to us. We have been at war for eight years, with 45,000 killed. It’s a staggering death toll which, in towns like mine, has meant the regular arrival of bodies brought back for burial. In the hope of ending the fighting, Ukraine has tried trusting Russia, and agreeing on a truce. We have learned the hard way about Putin’s agenda – that he sees our independence as an anomaly, our culture as a threat to be wiped out.
I was just a teenager during the events that started this war in November 2013. At the time, Ukraine wanted to strengthen ties with the EU and the President, Viktor Yanukovych, had promised to do so. But at the last minute, he changed his mind and announced closer ties with Moscow instead. He perhaps thought – as some in Europe seem to do now – that Ukrainians would go along with whatever the president decides. Instead, there was a mass revolt: a million marched in Kyiv to protest on behalf of European values and against the Kremlin’s protégé. This was the so-called Maidan Revolution.
Snipers led by Vladislav Surkov, Putin’s adviser, massacred almost 100 people – but rather than the protests being quelled, they intensified. On 22 February 2014, Yanukovych fled Kyiv. It was an empowering moment for Ukraine but also a moment of vulnerability. With no one in charge in Kyiv, Putin’s forces occupied Crimea, which he used as a base to invade Donbas – and Ukraine was at war. The fighting has never stopped since.
At that time I was at school in Poninka, three hours from Kyiv and some 600 miles from the front. At breaktime, we would weave camouflage nets to disguise tanks. At home, my mother would knit socks for the soldiers and collect food and warm clothes. My history teacher, who had been a father figure to me, was called up. He returned a year later a broken man, unable to recover from the horrors of a war that almost no one in Europe seemed to know was being fought.
Then came Volodymyr Zelensky. His election in 2019 may seem bizarre: why would a comedian-turned-actor with no political experience be chosen as president? But that was the point – to have new faces in the government, untainted by corruption. He wanted to negotiate a deal with Russia and stood on a platform of ending the war. I voted for him as a gamble, taking a risk on a dreamer who wanted peaceful negotiations.
For one brief moment, there was hope of a breakthrough when talks led to 35 Ukrainian captives being returned. But during further negotiations, Putin built up troops around the borders and it soon emerged that the talks had been an illusion.
It seemed to Ukrainians that Zelensky was out of his depth, at risk of being duped by Moscow. In February of this year, his approval ratings plunged to 24 per cent and it looked as if he might be overthrown. Had he made any concessions to Putin, he very possibly would have been.
Polls show that most Ukrainians think victory is not just possible, but likely
Zelensky faces the same risk now. If he agrees to a ceasefire that hands over Ukrainian territory, he would probably be removed at the first opportunity by a country that has shown its ability to overthrow presidents. Public opinion is firmly behind fighting on, in the belief that any ‘deal’ with Putin would turn us into a slave state and ‘peace’ would mean giving Russia a chance to rearm and return. Polls also show that most Ukrainians think victory is not just possible, but likely. That might sound hubristic, even naive, but what are the other options?
We have, after all, seen where a deal with Putin leads. Concessions were offered in August 2014, but Russia broke the agreements and started shooting at retreating Ukrainian troops at Ilovaisk. That massacre(now commemorated every year) forced Kyiv to negotiate on Putin’s terms, creating the notorious Minsk agreements, whereby the EU effectively agreed to let him keep Crimea. So we don’t need to guess what he would do if given another slice of Ukraine. He’d do what he did after he failed to occupy the whole Donbas and Luhansk regions in 2014: return with a stronger army.
I’m sometimes asked if I hope for a truce, if only so my father will not be conscripted. The idea of him fighting terrifies me. I don’t want to imagine my little brother growing up without a father. But nor do I want him to grow up in a Ukraine whose culture and language are being erased, its women abused and its people enslaved. If this sounds harsh, then consider what we’ve seen already.
In Bucha civilians were massacred and women raped. Donbas is now a bombed-out wasteland. Children in newly occupied eastern Ukraine are being enlisted in the Russian cadet core. In Mariupol, a Moscow-dictated school curriculum has been introduced. If a deal grants Putin control of southern Ukraine, we will lose a third of our economy. My parents and countless other Ukrainians will live in poverty, watching their country fall apart.
So that’s why we fight. The war has inflicted an unspeakable toll and Putin has made sure that every Ukrainian has someone to mourn for. But the last poll showed that 78 per cent are still against any concessions. I won’t list all my friends who have died in these eight years. But all of them were killed because they were defending the right to be free, to join Europe and Nato and to choose the best for their country and their children.
Ukraine isn’t running out of soldiers. Volunteers are not just queuing up at military recruitment centres but, in some cases, trying to bribe their way in. Civilians have something to protect – and are ready to die for it. The problem isn’t resolve or manpower, but weapons. Just 10 per cent of the arms Ukraine has asked for have been delivered.
The Ukrainian army uses about 5,000 artillery shells a day; the Russians ten times more. A friend’s battalion was forced to retreat from the Kharkiv region this month due to a lack of heavy weapons, especially long-range ones. They need help now because without it they may not last until winter.
And even with weapons, you might ask, would Ukrainians really be able to dislodge Russians? Is it moral to send arms to a country you don’t think stands a chance of winning? I’d reply with another question: when Putin first invaded, how long did you think it would be until Kyiv fell? Two days? Perhaps four? Ukraine’s soldiers – and its people – have amazed the world before. With the right kit, we can do so again.
I’ve felt Britain perhaps understands Ukraine better because it once fought alone against the odds – for reasons summed up by a prime minister who explained things well. ‘You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory,’ Winston Churchill said, ‘because it is better to perish than live as slaves.’ But for Ukraine, there is every hope of victory: if we get enough help. So it’s for my family, as well as for my country, that I hope this fight continues until the invader is repelled. As years of Putin’s war have taught us, there is really no alternative.
by Svitlana Morenets
Two months ago, I became one of the 80,000 Ukrainian refugees who have settled in Britain. The kindness I’ve been shown, by my host family and so many others, has been overwhelming. People are caring, but curious too. They ask how long Zelensky will really fight for. By which I suspect they mean: surely you guys don’t think you can actually win? Why prolong the bloodshed?
It’s a good question. By some estimates, nearly 80 per cent of the Russian army is in my country right now. We’re tiny by comparison with Russia and fighting alone, though with donated weapons. Officially, up to 1,000 Ukrainian soldiers are killed or wounded each day in eastern Ukraine. Unofficially, many more. My father, who is 53, could be called up any time. My seven-year-old brother is still at home. Why don’t I long for a ceasefire? Why doesn’t Zelensky?
To understand Ukraine – and the President’s position – you need to understand that war is not new to us. We have been at war for eight years, with 45,000 killed. It’s a staggering death toll which, in towns like mine, has meant the regular arrival of bodies brought back for burial. In the hope of ending the fighting, Ukraine has tried trusting Russia, and agreeing on a truce. We have learned the hard way about Putin’s agenda – that he sees our independence as an anomaly, our culture as a threat to be wiped out.
I was just a teenager during the events that started this war in November 2013. At the time, Ukraine wanted to strengthen ties with the EU and the President, Viktor Yanukovych, had promised to do so. But at the last minute, he changed his mind and announced closer ties with Moscow instead. He perhaps thought – as some in Europe seem to do now – that Ukrainians would go along with whatever the president decides. Instead, there was a mass revolt: a million marched in Kyiv to protest on behalf of European values and against the Kremlin’s protégé. This was the so-called Maidan Revolution.
Snipers led by Vladislav Surkov, Putin’s adviser, massacred almost 100 people – but rather than the protests being quelled, they intensified. On 22 February 2014, Yanukovych fled Kyiv. It was an empowering moment for Ukraine but also a moment of vulnerability. With no one in charge in Kyiv, Putin’s forces occupied Crimea, which he used as a base to invade Donbas – and Ukraine was at war. The fighting has never stopped since.
At that time I was at school in Poninka, three hours from Kyiv and some 600 miles from the front. At breaktime, we would weave camouflage nets to disguise tanks. At home, my mother would knit socks for the soldiers and collect food and warm clothes. My history teacher, who had been a father figure to me, was called up. He returned a year later a broken man, unable to recover from the horrors of a war that almost no one in Europe seemed to know was being fought.
Then came Volodymyr Zelensky. His election in 2019 may seem bizarre: why would a comedian-turned-actor with no political experience be chosen as president? But that was the point – to have new faces in the government, untainted by corruption. He wanted to negotiate a deal with Russia and stood on a platform of ending the war. I voted for him as a gamble, taking a risk on a dreamer who wanted peaceful negotiations.
For one brief moment, there was hope of a breakthrough when talks led to 35 Ukrainian captives being returned. But during further negotiations, Putin built up troops around the borders and it soon emerged that the talks had been an illusion.
It seemed to Ukrainians that Zelensky was out of his depth, at risk of being duped by Moscow. In February of this year, his approval ratings plunged to 24 per cent and it looked as if he might be overthrown. Had he made any concessions to Putin, he very possibly would have been.
Polls show that most Ukrainians think victory is not just possible, but likely
Zelensky faces the same risk now. If he agrees to a ceasefire that hands over Ukrainian territory, he would probably be removed at the first opportunity by a country that has shown its ability to overthrow presidents. Public opinion is firmly behind fighting on, in the belief that any ‘deal’ with Putin would turn us into a slave state and ‘peace’ would mean giving Russia a chance to rearm and return. Polls also show that most Ukrainians think victory is not just possible, but likely. That might sound hubristic, even naive, but what are the other options?
We have, after all, seen where a deal with Putin leads. Concessions were offered in August 2014, but Russia broke the agreements and started shooting at retreating Ukrainian troops at Ilovaisk. That massacre(now commemorated every year) forced Kyiv to negotiate on Putin’s terms, creating the notorious Minsk agreements, whereby the EU effectively agreed to let him keep Crimea. So we don’t need to guess what he would do if given another slice of Ukraine. He’d do what he did after he failed to occupy the whole Donbas and Luhansk regions in 2014: return with a stronger army.
I’m sometimes asked if I hope for a truce, if only so my father will not be conscripted. The idea of him fighting terrifies me. I don’t want to imagine my little brother growing up without a father. But nor do I want him to grow up in a Ukraine whose culture and language are being erased, its women abused and its people enslaved. If this sounds harsh, then consider what we’ve seen already.
In Bucha civilians were massacred and women raped. Donbas is now a bombed-out wasteland. Children in newly occupied eastern Ukraine are being enlisted in the Russian cadet core. In Mariupol, a Moscow-dictated school curriculum has been introduced. If a deal grants Putin control of southern Ukraine, we will lose a third of our economy. My parents and countless other Ukrainians will live in poverty, watching their country fall apart.
So that’s why we fight. The war has inflicted an unspeakable toll and Putin has made sure that every Ukrainian has someone to mourn for. But the last poll showed that 78 per cent are still against any concessions. I won’t list all my friends who have died in these eight years. But all of them were killed because they were defending the right to be free, to join Europe and Nato and to choose the best for their country and their children.
Ukraine isn’t running out of soldiers. Volunteers are not just queuing up at military recruitment centres but, in some cases, trying to bribe their way in. Civilians have something to protect – and are ready to die for it. The problem isn’t resolve or manpower, but weapons. Just 10 per cent of the arms Ukraine has asked for have been delivered.
The Ukrainian army uses about 5,000 artillery shells a day; the Russians ten times more. A friend’s battalion was forced to retreat from the Kharkiv region this month due to a lack of heavy weapons, especially long-range ones. They need help now because without it they may not last until winter.
And even with weapons, you might ask, would Ukrainians really be able to dislodge Russians? Is it moral to send arms to a country you don’t think stands a chance of winning? I’d reply with another question: when Putin first invaded, how long did you think it would be until Kyiv fell? Two days? Perhaps four? Ukraine’s soldiers – and its people – have amazed the world before. With the right kit, we can do so again.
I’ve felt Britain perhaps understands Ukraine better because it once fought alone against the odds – for reasons summed up by a prime minister who explained things well. ‘You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory,’ Winston Churchill said, ‘because it is better to perish than live as slaves.’ But for Ukraine, there is every hope of victory: if we get enough help. So it’s for my family, as well as for my country, that I hope this fight continues until the invader is repelled. As years of Putin’s war have taught us, there is really no alternative.
He's just really small.
Different weapon, but Ukraine also has this:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Austin stated early July for when he expected these to be in the field, in his last press conference, looks like timetables may have been stepped up, or training went well...
Doubt 4 of them is going to have all that great an effect, but its possible Ukraine has been holding off its Kherson offensive knowing that these and the pzh are on route. Might see some significant movement soon.
Doubt 4 of them is going to have all that great an effect, but its possible Ukraine has been holding off its Kherson offensive knowing that these and the pzh are on route. Might see some significant movement soon.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Africa, the middle east and south east Asia rely heavily on Russian and Ukranian wheat and corn (to varying degrees), potash mostly comes from Russia, China isn't selling phosphate, a lot of farmers won't be able to use fertilizer this year, it's a disaster.
https://graphics.reuters.com/UKRAINE-CRISIS/FOOD/zjvqkgomjvx/
Last edited:
I'd be interested to know whether one of these trials reveals that rape was encouraged by Russian commanders
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It's probably a case of how quickly they can train crews and engineers and set up a supply line for ammo and parts. That number might only be 4 so far but I'd expect it to increase into couple of dozens in the next month.
And I think I've said it before but what happens in Kherson might be telling for the future of this war. If things progress well for Ukraine, they could be in a position to siege Kherson by then end of next month. But for obvious reasons, they can't afford to do what the Russians did to Mariupol. This would be their first attempt to recapture a city and it'll be very interesting to see what tactics are used and what the results will be.
I'm also keen to see how determined the resistance of the Russian army will be. In the Donbas, the Russian army is bolstered by separatist units from the breakaway republics, who are basically fighting for their homes. In Kherson though, it's a 100% Russian army that has invaded through Crimea. How willing will they be to take massive losses to protect territory they have no affiliation to?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What happened to Glaston , this thread is getting bumped much more rarely now...
Did Spurs preseaon friendlies start already?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Agreed. Though I doubt there's much decibel reduction from the muzzle device. In that use case it's going to be used to hide the flash and therby the sniper's location.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Excellent post.
I hope you guys get the things you need to expel Putin
Fantastic news. What does that actually mean for Ukraine right now? Do they get some degree of protection from an outsider aggresion that they didn't have before? Or an easier path for getting humanitary aid?
I didn't write the Article. Svitlana did
The only protection they could get would be from Article 5 collective security, which the EU can’t offer. And any security benefits of being in the EU are already in action via individual member state support to Ukraine from various EU nations.
Thanks. So, OK-ish news?
I imagine that a full membership without a secured border is unfeasible for the EU, so an end of the war is mandatory for Ukraine to join. Maybe that would take a couple of years.
Yeah, that's good news. My cynical comments about the Netherlands from a pages ago have turned out to be (largely) incorrect.
I think it mostly gives the countries a concrete path to EU membership, with requirements and milestones. That doesn't do anything in the right-now, but it's a significant step in the long-term journey to EU membership.
Probably much more than a couple of years. To become a member, Ukraine and Moldova will need to reach set levels in terms of democratic values, human rights, and the economy, and adopt EU laws and regulations. That can take very long indeed, especially for these two, cause the reason why their candidate-member status was in question, was because they were both considered to be very far from reaching this membership treshold. So don't count on membership before 2030, I'd say.
(For extreme examples, Turkey has been a candidate member since 1999 and Serbia since 2005 - but their delay is more complicated of course. There's a list of candidate members (not yet including Ukraine and Moldova) here, with further information.)
It's meaningless news. Like so much of the last 4 months, it's an empty gesture made with an eye on what is tweetable. Its only value is in how much Boris and the rest of the British government will be raging right now (back in March Boris compared Ukraine's literally existential fight to not have its population be systematically murdered by an invading force to the UK's heroic Brexit struggle*. Now his new best/only geopolitical friend is joining his nemesis and all those juicy reconstruction contracts he was banking on just got a hell of a lot more complicated).
Nobody wanted Ukraine in the EU prior to February 24th and nobody wants it now, despite all the grand statements, least of all those who pay for the EU. Those who matter in the EU know that there is a less than 2% chance Ukraine will be able to join them this side of 2030 (it took the last country to join over a decade to do so; Ukraine prior to Feb 24th was the 2nd most corrupt country in Europe after Russia, it will take decades to make the place EU-capable). All these unelected stuffed shirts (Ursula von der Leyen, Josep Borrel, Charles Michel) will not be there in a few years' time, they can say whatever populist headline-baiting nonsense they want about how "We will be with Ukraine throughout their journey, they belong in Europe!" It doesn't change the fact that it isn't going to happen within the next 15 to 20 years at least (as Macron and Sholtz themselves have been saying), and that's assuming there's even a 'Ukraine' in 5 years' time, which isn't certain (and in my opinion is actually unlikely, but suggesting this has seen me called a c*nt in this thread before so that's as far as I'll go with it).
* https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-60810168
Last edited:
I'm just now back from a week away on a Greek island - time away that included a break from all social media.