Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Tuearts right boot]

some news I saw tonight is that when you see Ukrainians towing away Russian armour it is not for reuse in a conventional manner - a splatted tank can be used as a roadblock to thwart tank movement - fill it with sand banks rubble and shit and a Russian tank is having to roll over something as big as itself not some Lada estate. In doing so it exposes a softer under belly armour to a javelin - ouch.

Then what they do is mine the odd tank - so going over or going around a wreck Russian tankies don't know for sure whether or not it will explode and do for them - covered in flaming tar and oil is not nice.

The final nifty trick they have is that some of the tanks have functioning turrets - so set them across a road block then suddenly raise the cannon and fire. I wouldn't mind betting some Russian tank drivers are claiming a tank full of fuel is in fact running on empty.

As that Ukrainian fighter said " they fight like 1941 Russian Army - we fight smart"

 

[Ancient Citizen]

It's the US equivalent of the Daily Express so it's likely to have about as much credibility. For you, presumably that would make it a highly credible source.
As others have said, China looks after itself and no-one else.
Wouldn't surprise me if they end up taking advantage of a weakened Russia to secure access to the mineral resources in the eastern two thirds of the country.

It's also 'Likely' that sources elsewhere are not credible, but for you, that's irrelevant,
as long as you can get some daft dig in. I have not suggested this, or indeed anything you
and others put up is without doubt gospel that must be believed, as nothing is concrete
during war.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Sorry if already posted... Well worth a watch... I hope that this gets to be seen by Russians

Thought it was very impressive.

 

[Vic]

I think the announcement of huge increases in their defence spending shows that at least the Chancellor has dramatically changed Germany's stance, but the gasps that greeted his announcement in parliament showed that many still did not get it. Ostpolitik, the legacy of Willy Brandt, has failed.

Ostpolitik worked fine.

Dealing with Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union has been disastrous. But I'd be interested to see if anyone can cite when Russia / Putin started seriously contemplating trying to bring the former Soviet republics back into the Russian fold. (As distinct from the fears that that might happen, which led those states to want to be in NATO).

Interdependence as a policy to make war too expensive isn't a bad idea. But, like any foreign policy, it only takes a mad ideologue to disrupt the best calculation. Western investment in Russian oil and gas and Gazprom in Western Europe wasn't a bad idea. Hindsight is always wonderful. I suspect Putin now wishes he'd had it.

 

[KS55]

Ostpolitik worked fine.

Dealing with Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union has been disastrous. But I'd be interested to see if anyone can cite when Russia / Putin started seriously contemplating trying to bring the former Soviet republics back into the Russian fold. (As distinct from the fears that that might happen, which led those states to want to be in NATO).

Interdependence as a policy to make war too expensive isn't a bad idea. But, like any foreign policy, it only takes a mad ideologue to disrupt the best calculation. Western investment in Russian oil and gas and Gazprom in Western Europe wasn't a bad idea. Hindsight is always wonderful. I suspect Putin now wishes he'd had it.

Don't disagree but Ostpolitik has to be judged in the long term and its legacy is what we have now. Sure it took a Looney Tune to upset it but the lesson of history is that a Looney Tune will always appear. Germany, of all countries, should know this and should have taken it into account. They finished up behaving as though Russia was a stable partner on whom they could rely for half their energy. The take over of Crimea and the fostering of civil war in Donbas should have warned them to diversify their sources. They didn't and I don't think it's too fanciful to suggest that the mind set of Ospolitik was responsible for some self deception. Against that, of course, we should weigh the politically westward movement of Russia's ex client states and the reunification of Germany. Ok, ostpolitik not failed, but flawed.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Sorry if already posted... Well worth a watch... I hope that this gets to be seen by Russians

well said, Arnie.

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

I see Ofcom have finally revoked RT’s licence. Good riddance. They’ve been pedalling lies and propaganda from a hostile state for years and years. Imagine if “ISIS TV” had had a licence on Sky, there would be outrage.

It should never have been allowed to broadcast in the first place and any British person working for them including that deranged **** George Galloway should be done for treason.

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

Let's hope they're not bluffing.

China won’t let Putin lose his ugly Ukraine war

Russian President Vladimir Putin requested military assistance from his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping to fight a war when much of the world is uniting against him.

nypost.com

Just another 'Source,' whether it's just an opinion piece I don't know.

The NY Post is about as reliable as the Sun btw. American gutter press.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I see Ofcom have finally revoked RT’s licence. Good riddance. They’ve been pedalling lies and propaganda from a hostile state for years and years. Imagine if “ISIS TV” had had a licence on Sky, there would be outrage.

It should never have been allowed to broadcast in the first place and any British person working for them including that deranged **** George Galloway should be done for treason.

I always thought if you watched a bit of RT, Al Jazeera and Fox then between all the bollocks you could discern the truth (if you have the time)

 

[Blue Mist]

What, print that the government issued licences to sell weapons to Russia, but don't print it because the arms dealers might not have used the licences they applied for?

Let's face it, the arms trade (and the government) have the same motto, "if we didn't sell it, someone else would" and we've never had much moral compunction about arming nasty regimes (including stuff for internal repression).

So why does a far more reputable company report that the UK did not supply any weapons or material that could be used in war ?