Russian invasion of Ukraine

FROM THE BBC
“Russian President Vladimir Putin this week rejected Western proposals for a “reassurance force” to be deployed in Ukraine if a ceasefire is agreed.

It's comes after French President Emmanuel Macron led a Paris summit this week with members of the so-called “coalition of the willing”, aimed at finalising plans for security guarantees.

Macron stresses that any troops would be deployed to prevent "any new major aggression" and not at the front line. The force "does not have the will or the objective of waging war against Russia", he says.

But Putin has sought to quash the allies’ initiative, and has warned that any troops deployed to Ukraine would be “legitimate targets”.

And, speaking to the BBC, Putin’s spokesman says that any foreign forces, whether belonging to Nato or otherwise, would be a danger to Russia "because we are an enemy of Nato“
————————————————————

With Russian agent Trump in the White House and weak European leaders Ukraine is holding on long enough for politicians to get a grip and send troops into Ukraine. Time to call Putins bluff and face the threats or all end up speaking Russian
 
johnny crossan said:
Some would argue since 2014 but I think Putin can still be stopped although it is looking particularly bleak atm. Wondering what happened to their defence systems last night, probably overwhelmed by the volume of drones and missiles.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s looking particularly bleak atm at all.

There have been several encouraging signs of late: some small territorial gains on the front line; Russian advances being repelled; a successful campaign to degrade Russian refining capacity and continuing problems in the Russian economy are all positive.

It’s certainly not all one way traffic, as suitably demonstrated by last night, but the notion that by any objective measure Russia is winning this conflict, as the term ‘particularly bleak’ suggests, is wrong imo.

It’s a hugely nuanced situation that extends way beyond incremental tactical gains and bombardment of Kiev with drones by Russia.

None of the above means that I disagree with you that Europe needs to further step up as much in its own self interest as that of Ukraine’s.
 
johnny crossan said:
there needs to be allied action to stop them soon or it curtains for Ukraine

www.bbc.co.uk

Zelensky condemns 'ruthless attack' after Russia hits government building in Kyiv

The Ukrainian president says he will "ensure an appropriate response" after four people were killed and more than 44 injured.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Hitting civilian and government buildings might terrorise the poor locals but it doesn't do much to unroot Ukraines robust defence. russia has wasted billions on missiles and shaheds attacking civilians it is part of the reason they're skint with next to no new gains and mud season on the way.

Ukraine is now producing over 60% of the weapons it needs internally. There is no extra level russia can go to now they're maxed out otherwise they would have done it already.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I don’t think it’s looking particularly bleak atm at all.

There have been several encouraging signs of late: some small territorial gains on the front line; Russian advances being repelled; a successful campaign to degrade Russian refining capacity and continuing problems in the Russian economy are all positive.

It’s certainly not all one way traffic, as suitably demonstrated by last night, but the notion that by any objective measure Russia is winning this conflict, as the term ‘particularly bleak’ suggests, is wrong imo.

It’s a hugely nuanced situation that extends way beyond incremental tactical gains and bombardment of Kiev with drones by Russia.

None of the above means that I disagree with you that Europe needs to further step up as much in its own self interest as that of Ukraine’s.
Click to expand...
We both see hope for an improvement in Ukraine's chances anyway. As you say looks like they depend on whether Europe can agree to finance its collective self interest in time.
 
Scottyboi said:
Hitting civilian and government buildings might terrorise the poor locals but it doesn't do much to unroot Ukraines robust defence. russia has wasted billions on missiles and shaheds attacking civilians it is part of the reason they're skint with next to no new gains and mud season on the way.

Ukraine is now producing over 60% of the weapons it needs internally. There is no extra level russia can go to now they're maxed out otherwise they would have done it already.
Click to expand...
The notion that Russia can go up another gear is actually comical. Like you say, if they could, they’d have done so previously.
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
FROM THE BBC
“Russian President Vladimir Putin this week rejected Western proposals for a “reassurance force” to be deployed in Ukraine if a ceasefire is agreed.

It's comes after French President Emmanuel Macron led a Paris summit this week with members of the so-called “coalition of the willing”, aimed at finalising plans for security guarantees.

Macron stresses that any troops would be deployed to prevent "any new major aggression" and not at the front line. The force "does not have the will or the objective of waging war against Russia", he says.

But Putin has sought to quash the allies’ initiative, and has warned that any troops deployed to Ukraine would be “legitimate targets”.

And, speaking to the BBC, Putin’s spokesman says that any foreign forces, whether belonging to Nato or otherwise, would be a danger to Russia "because we are an enemy of Nato“
————————————————————

With Russian agent Trump in the White House and weak European leaders Ukraine is holding on long enough for politicians to get a grip and send troops into Ukraine. Time to call Putins bluff and face the threats or all end up speaking Russian
Click to expand...
Weak European Leaders??
 
johnny crossan said:
there needs to be allied action to stop them soon or it curtains for Ukraine

www.bbc.co.uk

Zelensky condemns 'ruthless attack' after Russia hits government building in Kyiv

The Ukrainian president says he will "ensure an appropriate response" after four people were killed and more than 44 injured.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Presumably this strike on the main Ukrainian government building makes the Kremlin and Duma HQ priority targets. Let’s see how the midget would like to see the centre of his empire up in flames.
 
mosssideblue said:
Weak European Leaders??
Click to expand...
Yes it’s BS. What’s weaker than it should be is Europe’s military capability thanks to the so called peace dividend and over reliance on the US that worked well for all until we got a Kremlin stooge in the White House. That situation is being addressed but it will take years.
 
west didsblue said:
Presumably this strike on the main Ukrainian government building makes the Kremlin and Duma HQ priority targets. Let’s see how the midget would like to see the centre of his empire up in flames.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it does.

The hit on the Ukraine government building today, is more likely an "own goal" as firing anti air weapons over a City is a dangerous thing to do.

I understand why they do try and stop the missiles, they don't want the actual targets hit, but and I've said this before, if you can't/don't fully destroy your target, it can and will come down anywhere, and will still contain the dangerous explosive. This includes hitting civilians too, I doubt the russians target appartment blocks directly (apart from near the frontline where they will be being used as defence or attack shelter). They will be going after military or infrastructure targets, but unfortunately the missiles malfunction and go off target, or they get knocked off target by anti air.

Not excusing it, as if they weren't firing the missiles/drones at cities, this wouldn't happen, but it has to be taken into account.

If russia wanted to hit the Ukraine government directly, I'm sure they wouldn't have waited 2 1/2 years to do it, I've always found it a bit strange that they didn't just flatten the government buildings from day 1, they certainly had the ability to do so.
 
cleavers said:
If russia wanted to hit the Ukraine government directly, I'm sure they wouldn't have waited 2 1/2 years to do it, I've always found it a bit strange that they didn't just flatten the government buildings from day 1, they certainly had the ability to do so.
Click to expand...
Probably because they assumed their puppet regime would be in them tout suite.
 
west didsblue said:
Yes it’s BS. What’s weaker than it should be is Europe’s military capability thanks to the so called peace dividend and over reliance on the US that worked well for all until we got a Kremlin stooge in the White House. That situation is being addressed but it will take years.
Click to expand...
Under the current circumstances, I think Europe are doing the best the can
 
johnny crossan said:
Some would argue since 2014 but I think Putin can still be stopped although it is looking particularly bleak atm. Wondering what happened to their defence systems last night, probably overwhelmed by the volume of drones and missiles.
Click to expand...
It’s particularly bleak because China has come down firmly on Russia’s side which gives NK a free hand to provide as much weaponry as they can build to Russia. Similarly Iran has no incentive to stop supporting Russia due to the attitude of the US, and the US itself is scaling back support to Ukraine.

It all boils down to a combination of Trump’s incompetence and overt admiration of autocrats. They’ve also managed to push India into that alliance.

It’s now just Europe that needs to do what it can to support Ukraine. The rest of the world is either on Russia’s side or has no influence.

The only slightly positive news is that in spite of Russia’s diplomatic wins across Asia and in the US, his army is still making hardly any progress in Ukraine.
 
cleavers said:
I'm not sure it does.

The hit on the Ukraine government building today, is more likely an "own goal" as firing anti air weapons over a City is a dangerous thing to do.

I understand why they do try and stop the missiles, they don't want the actual targets hit, but and I've said this before, if you can't/don't fully destroy your target, it can and will come down anywhere, and will still contain the dangerous explosive. This includes hitting civilians too, I doubt the russians target appartment blocks directly (apart from near the frontline where they will be being used as defence or attack shelter). They will be going after military or infrastructure targets, but unfortunately the missiles malfunction and go off target, or they get knocked off target by anti air.

Not excusing it, as if they weren't firing the missiles/drones at cities, this wouldn't happen, but it has to be taken into account.

If russia wanted to hit the Ukraine government directly, I'm sure they wouldn't have waited 2 1/2 years to do it, I've always found it a bit strange that they didn't just flatten the government buildings from day 1, they certainly had the ability to do so.
Click to expand...
How can it be classed as an own goal when you're attempting to save the lives of your own civilians?

As for the question "why hasn't ruSSia flattened Ukrainian government buildings?" It will be an unwritten agreement, avoid the Ukrainian parliament and the Kremlin won't be targeted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top