1. #8701
    Viva Ukraine
    Hugh Cow's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 01:50 PM
    Location
    Qld/Bangkok
    Posts
    3,830
    Saw an interesting video from Chuck Pfarrer regarding the usefulness of the partial mobilization force. Not liable to be much more than cannon fodder according to him. Anyone who doesn't know of him (snubby will) he is a vastly experienced combat officer, ex seal team leader.

  2. #8702
    Thailand Expat helge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    8,750
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    The war crimes the Russians have committed in this war far eclipses anything that the US has ever done. Even attempting to draw a comparison is pure idiocy.
    Has to be saved

    The author is either mad or a world class ignorant

  3. #8703
    Chinese spy sabang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:08 AM
    Location
    BackinOz
    Posts
    39,470
    Seriously, you've gotta wonder if he has even reached puberty.

  4. #8704
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    42,920
    Putin fires deputy defence chief after supply failures in Ukraine; appoints 'Butcher of Mariupol' in place

    Amid the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, Moscow’s deputy defence minister Dmitry Bulgakov will be replaced by Colonel General Mikhail Mizintsev. Bulgakov was in charge of logistics in the war.


    “Army General Dmitry Bulgakov has been relieved of the post of deputy minister of defence,” said Russia’s defence minister on Telegram, on Saturday. Reportedly, the country’s president Vladimir Putin fired him following the military’s dwindling logistics operations in Ukraine. He will now be “released” and transferred into a new role, indicated the ministry. However, they did not mention what would be the new role.

    Bulgakov is being replaced with Mikhail Mizintsev who is also infamously known as the “Butcher of Mariupol”. According to media reports, the Col Gen has ordered some of the most brutal attacks on the city of Mariupol in Ukraine.


    Mizintsev has been dubbed with the aforementioned title following his orders of an airstrike on a maternity hospital and the attack on a theatre which was sheltering hundreds of children at the time. The 60-year-old has also been sanctioned by the UK for the same following his actions in the Ukrainian city in May, earlier this year.

    According to BBC, this move has been seen as a punishment for Bulgakov after his flawed logistics operations in Kyiv after Moscow has not been able to make any headway in the past weeks. Bulgakov has been managing the Russian military’s logistics since 2008 and was also responsible to keep the Russian troops in Syria supplied in 2015.


    However, the General has reportedly been sidelined by Moscow in the past months with many blaming him for the faulty and chaotic operations which have affected Russia’s advancement in Ukraine, said BBC. Meanwhile, his successor Mizintsev has been accused of the cluster bombing campaign on residential areas in Aleppo.


    Russia has also pressured its only two remaining allies North Korea and Iran for new artillery and drones. Gen Bulgakov’s dismissal also comes amid footage being circulated on social media which shows newly drafted Russians carrying rusty assault rifles, indicated the BBC.


    Putin fires deputy defence chief after supply failures in Ukraine; appoints 'Butcher of Mariupol' in place - World News

  5. #8705
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,079
    Quote Originally Posted by helge View Post
    Has to be saved

    The author is either mad or a world class ignorant
    I was drunk, but regardless, the crimes committed in this war by Russia are far worse than anything the US did in Iraq or Afghanistan. I do not care to go back into ancient history. But then again you are a Putin knob gobbler who probably thinks the US is to blame for this war like your idiot buddy Sabang.

  6. #8706
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    42,920
    The Long, Brutal History of Russian Prisoners of War

    Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday signed off on amendments to the Criminal Code that include a new article on “Voluntary Surrender.” This stipulates that any Russian soldier surrendering “voluntarily” will be sentenced to between three and 10 years in prison.


    This signals the start of a new chapter in the long and brutal history of Russian PoWs returning to their homeland.




    The failed Winter War


    Soviet leader Josef Stalin expected that his 1939 attack on Finland would be a “three-day war.” But, after three months of fighting, the Soviet Union still hadn’t won. And to his surprise, about 6,000 men, including commanders and commissars, had surrendered. After the armistice, Stalin decided to teach the entire army a lesson. More than 500 former PoWs were shot and almost all the rest sent to the gulag. Only 450 survived.

    The PoWs sent to the gulag were the lucky ones. Prison sentences were considered an act of “mercy,” since the Penal Code in those years stipulated the death penalty “for surrender not caused by combat conditions.”



    The Great Patriotic War and treason


    The first months after the Nazi attack in June 1941 were a disaster for the Red Army. By the end of the year, 3.3 million soldiers and officers of the Red Army had been captured. The German command was totally unprepared for this influx, and prisoners lived outdoors surrounded by barbed wire. It was easy to escape, but there was nowhere to go.

    PoWs who somehow managed to get back to the Soviet Union were presumed guilty. If a former prisoner could prove he’d been wounded or left without arms or ammunition before being captured, he was sent back to fight. The others were sent to the gulag.


    Stalin created special camps for “traitors to the Motherland, spies and terrorists” in 1943. Conditions there were even worse than in other camps, and former PoWs were tried for "treason” — defecting to the enemy. The standard sentence was 25 years.


    By the end of the war in 1945, 1.8 million former prisoners of war had come home from captivity. In the Soviet Union, all returned prisoners ended up in special filtration camps and many were set to work rebuilding what had been destroyed during the war.


    While ex-PoWs served out their sentences, they were investigated. The investigators determined how they had surrendered and how they behaved in German camps. Particular attention was paid to anyone who had been released by the Allies. Now, PoWs were no longer suspected of spying for Germany, but for the U.S. and the United Kingdom.


    According to historians, about 5% of returning PoWs were tried for "treason against the Motherland." That may seem like a small percentage, but it was tens of thousands of men.


    Those who were released without charges were put under surveillance by the secret police and had difficulty getting access to education or getting a job. At that time, all job applications included the question: “Were you a prisoner of war?”



    U.S. helps Russian PoWs in Afghanistan

    Very little is known about Soviet PoWs during the initial fighting in Afghanistan, which began in December 1979. They simply did not exist: Afghan mujahideen shot prisoners on the spot.


    Vladimir Bukovsky, an exiled Soviet dissident, worked hard to convince the U.S. authorities to make the mujahideen follow at least some of the rules of war. In 1986, Freedom House staffer Ludmilla Thorne went to Afghanistan in an attempt to persuade field commanders to allow Soviet PoWs to leave for the United States.

    She was able to get about a dozen PoWs out of Afghanistan. Not all of them remained: some were unable to adapt, some had families and fiancés back home. Soldier Nikolai Ryzhkov met with the Soviet ambassador in Washington, Anatoly Dobrynin, who personally gave him guarantees of immunity upon his return to the Soviet Union. Nine days after arriving home, Ryzhkov was arrested and sentenced to 12 years on the same Stalinist charge of “treason against the Motherland.”


    PoWs who returned after the end of the war in Afghanistan in early 1989 were no longer in danger: camps for political prisoners had been closed. But, until the very end of the Soviet Union, their rights were restricted, and they could neither study nor get a decent job.



    Another “three-day war”

    Putin is in the same situation today as Stalin was in 1939. He, too, was counting on a "three-day war" and did not expect his soldiers to surrender by the hundreds. Four days after the war began, 200 Russian soldiers were captured, and, by March, there were 562 PoWs. There are no official figures from either side, but the probable total is about a thousand.


    For Russian soldiers, surrendering is the easiest way to stay alive, especially since, psychologically, it is quite easy for them: the “enemy” speaks their language.


    How military tribunals will interpret the law is not yet known. In a sense, surrender is always a voluntary act: a person makes a choice between life and death.


    One thing is clear from this, however: apart from fear, Putin has no way of motivating his soldiers to fight. And this is a clear sign that he cannot win this war.

    The Long, Brutal History of Russian Prisoners of War - The Moscow Times




    Russia treats it’s own people so badly. I don’t understand why anyone would take up for them.

  7. #8707
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,079
    LYMAN/1430 UTC 25 SEP/ UKR forces have prosecuted a multi-pronged attack to isolate and dislodge RU troops occupying the important rail junction at Lyman. UKR has crossed and cut the O-0527 HWY near Drobysheve. UKR air defense is reported to have downed an Su-34 strike fighter.
    Ukraine war mega thread-geohfcl-jpg

  8. #8708
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,079
    KHERSON/ 2045 UTC 25 SEP/ UKR air defense downed a pair of Iranian made Shaheed-136 UCAVs, intercepting them before they could reach targets in Mykolaiv. On 24 SEP, UKR air defense downed a Russian Su-25, and shortly after, an Mi-8 CSAR helicopter, reportedly near Beryslav.
    Ukraine war mega thread-nm0heqg-jpg

  9. #8709
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,079

    "Don't call Russians military. They are just a horde of bad people"

    "Don't call Russians military. They are just a horde of bad people" — military expert John Spencer

    When Ukraine launched a surprise successful operation in Kharkiv Oblast, John Spencer, an urban warfare expert, called it "the greatest counteroffensive in modern history."

    Spencer served in the U.S. Army for over 25 years and is a retired major with combat experience in Iraq. He has extensive experience in the Strategic Studies Group of the U.S. Defense Department, worked at the elite U.S. military academy West Point and the Pentagon, and taught and researched military affairs at the United States Military Academy. He is the author of the "Mini-Manual for the Urban Defender". He closely follows the war in Ukraine and believes that urban defense plays a key role.

    In June, Major Spencer came to Kyiv to see with his own eyes how a small Ukrainian army was able to stop the offensive of the second largest in the world.

    hromadske spoke to John Spencer, a retired U.S. Army Major and the chair of Urban Warfare Studies with the Madison Policy Forum, about how the battles for the cities have influenced the course of the Russo-Ukrainian war and how and when it may end.

    You praised the Kharkiv counteroffensive. Why do you think it was successful?

    I think it's so successful just because the Ukrainian military is a better military. There are military reasons about having better intelligence, having better speed ability to move faster but really, you have to give the credit to Ukrainian soldiers who are just better at discipline about initiative. In the military, we say that a unit that can understand what they're fighting for and understand what the mission is, they'll do great things on the battlefield. But clearly, this was a massive operation that was coordinated at the General Staff through a lot of work, but it was the actual ground soldier that accomplishes such great things.

    Some military analysts attributed this success to a disinformation campaign. The Russians expected the counteroffensive in the south as the Ukrainian officials announced and didn’t prepare themselves to defend Kharkiv Oblast. Is it only about misguiding the Russians? Could you talk a little bit more about the tactical level as well?

    Sure. Deception is always important in war. For 1000s of years, some of these things never change. Some people are trying to say that the offensive in Kherson was a feint. I personally don't think so. The offensive out Kherson is a real major offensive to deliberate Kherson from Russian occupiers. And it's been going on for weeks and weeks with the use of long-range munitions to take out bridges, to hit Russia and ammunition supplies, even striking capabilities in Russian-occupied Crimea.

    The Russians had to respond to that offensive but what they did was they rushed everything they could and left themselves vulnerable in the Kharkiv offensive. Now, only the Ukrainian General staff could tell you whether that was the plan. To me, it doesn't really matter. It was the fact that Russia left itself very vulnerable. And the Ukrainians had the superior capability to identify that they were extremely vulnerable on that front. And to push, not just a little bit, but hundreds of kilometers because the Russians left such weak forces who didn't fight. And I actually think that surprised even the Ukrainians that the Russians didn't even try to fight, they just ran. Russians made a bad decision. Ukraine responded: either they planned it that way, or they just responded quicker and took advantage of that. And now they have so many Russian weapons that they've captured, and they've liberated so many of the villages and have dealt Russia a massive blow to their ability to continue to stay in Ukraine.

    How can the Ukrainian military use this success furthermore? What’s next?

    I think Ukraine is using this to their success. But there's a lot of work to be done even in the new areas that have been re-occupied. We're discovering all the horrors that happen when Russians occupied Ukrainian land and what they do to the civilians, into the infrastructure. Ukraine will reestablish its lines and continue to push the offense there. I don't think this war goes for years. I think this war goes for months.

    Ukraine will have to reestablish its lines, resupply the soldiers, and get ready for the next operation. As they continue to fill out this, I think Kherson will be liberated very soon.

    They, as I had to make sure, can keep the gains they’ve had because Russia will respond. But Russia's days are numbered. They don't have anything else of substance they can send to Ukraine. I mean, they're asking North Korea for artillery rounds and asking Iran for drones. They are desperate. But they are still dangerous. So Ukraine has to be very careful about their next steps to this ultimate victory.

    What if they mobilize troops in Russia?*

    That is a big question for military analysts if Russia calls for a national mobilization. Most of us believe that's just not possible. One is the embarrassment that it would cause Russia if they call for a national mobilization and the men don't show up, because they're already having problems just filling their normal conscript numbers. It would also go against their entire messaging about the special military operation in Ukraine. To mobilize the entire country, they would have to say this is a threat against Russia. It's not, this is about defending Ukraine and Ukraine will stop at Ukraine’s sovereign line. So there are lots of reasons why they can't or why they won't. So I think it's highly unlikely. But let's say they did, and this is what they're doing. They're taking people who have no training, they're taking prisoners out of prisons, and sending them to the frontlines to die. So if Russia wants to send more soldiers to the frontlines to die for a cause it's not theirs, then go ahead. I don't think that'll change the ultimate victory for Ukraine.

    You mentioned weapons. Do you think Ukraine can win this war without long-range missiles if they won't be provided?

    There's definitely a variety of long-range missiles. Can Ukraine win this war without some of the longer-range missiles that they've asked for? Yes, absolutely, they can. But if the Western world, the Free World wants the war in Ukraine to end faster, [...] then they would provide Ukraine with all the weapons that are necessary, like the long-range weapons that can shoot over 300 kilometers and more vehicles and all that.

    Why does the U.S. hesitate to provide it?

    I don't have an insider view to the political negotiations. Every country that provides aid is a risk decision on the idea of escalating the situation in the geopolitical row. So I'm not privy to that.

    Maybe it's a concern since Russia said if you provide this that will escalate the war. But that's a bully, you know, rattling his nuclear saber. I think that's a form of appeasement not to provide Ukraine with those weapons. There's one argument about it would give Ukraine the ability to hit targets inside of Russia and escalate to a greater war in Europe. I think that's just a silly argument because Ukraine can range Russia from the Kharkiv region with mortar rounds. That's just a silly argument, and really, I think, a form of appeasement to Putin not to anger him, or not to allow him to escalate it. This has always been about Ukraine, defending its land with its soldiers. And all they've asked for is the weapons. And they've shown that they will use those weapons responsibly because they have weapons that reach really far out that they could reach Russia. And they're not the ones attacking civilian locations, hospitals, nurseries, theaters. So I fully support giving Ukraine any weapon it needs, and it won't escalate the war.

    Let's talk about urban warfare. How has this war contributed to the understanding of urban warfare?

    I think this war has proved what many have known is that war is about urban areas. Every battle that's happened in Ukraine since day one since the Battle of Kyiv, Sumy and Kharkiv has been about Russia's interest in grabbing urban terrain because urban terrain is the economic engine of nations. Urban areas are the logistical hubs for maneuvering supplies around the country. I say that all roads lead to urban. Ukraine has shown the world that militaries must be able to defend urban terrain and also conduct operations to liberate urban terrain from enemy occupiers. And in this war, specifically, is that sometimes it isn't always about destroying an enemy as it is about protecting and fighting for control of cities which make up a country, share the root with
    civilizations, they are the people. So the different battles for Ukrainian cities have shown at the strategic, operational, and tactical level that it's very important for militaries to be able to fight in, for, and defend urban terrain.

    Could you speak more about different approaches? I mean how different are Russia's and Ukraine’s approaches when it comes to defending urban areas?

    There are some differences here because Ukraine is fighting a just war and using all the laws of armed conflict, and following all the rules on how to conduct the warfare. Russia wants a war of attrition, Russia wants the Ukrainian military to come out and fight them on the field of battle, so they can be blown up with artillery. Russia wants to seize the urban terrain, so they can destroy, loot, take all the resources, and control the urban terrain. The difference in the way they fight for it, though, is that Russia, like in battles such as Mariupol and Severodonetsk, will not follow the laws of armed conflict about how to use, how to fight an urban terrain about protecting civilians, protecting civilian objects and protected locations, they will literally just conduct bombings in front of their forces as they try to maneuver for, where Ukraine has shown 100% whether they're defending or they're trying to liberate urban terrain, they're all only fire at military targets. When Russia takes a piece of urban terrain, it's usually 80 to 100% destroyed. So it's nothing left. So it doesn't liberate anything. It literally destroys everything.

    Would it be fair to say that the Russian strategy hasn't changed since World War II? As an expert, could you compare, for example, the Battle of Berlin and the siege of Mariupol? Does Russia use still the same strategy?

    There are some differences. Russia decided to build its military in a certain way but absolutely, there are still practices that are left over from how they treat their soldiers, how they educate their soldiers, which then reflects into the way they fight. Their system is just weaker, and they put soldiers into a foreign country and they do bad things. But the laws of war have also changed since World War II, things like ‘never again’ that should have meaning to everybody in the world.

    There are some similarities to the Battle of Berlin or even the battles in Chechnya and Grozny where they are fully willing to destroy everything, rather than fight the enemy in the urban terrain, which is legitimately by definition a war crime, where they're not distinguishing between military targets and civilians. They actually use war crimes as a form of warfare. And I personally believe on purpose. But they actually fight more like the Nazis than they did do the Soviets in World War II, in their use of genocidal practices purposely causing humanitarian crisis is just to give them advantages. But as a military guy, it makes me angry to even call them a military. They're not really a military. They're just a horde of bad people doing bad things. A military'll operate with a code with an ethical framework, it fights for its nation under its nation's values. What Russia has sent into Ukraine is just a horde of bad people.

    Some military experts say that Ukrainian small units are better trained for close combat when it comes to urban terrain. Do you agree with this?

    100%. So all fighting is at that small unit level, that's where the battles are won or lost. And it starts with the framework of how you built your military before you even started training it, that they're fighting for a just cause. They're a cohesive group, they trust their leaders at all levels. And then that translates to being trained to fight as a group on the specifics of urban warfare, which are unique. But everything I'm seeing is that Ukrainian is a better lead, a better motivated, and a better-trained military at both the small unit level, but even at the large-scale level if you look at operations happening now for urban areas. It isn't that Ukraine is just surrounding urban areas and then going in and attacking. They're fighting smarter. They're outthinking Russian forces, even at the lowest level. And that can only be done because the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian president, everybody trusts the soldiers.

    Why did Russian fail to capture Kyiv and succeeded in Mariupol?

    Each urban battle is different. The terrain is different. The military situation is different in their capabilities. I went to Kyiv in June and toured all the locations Bucha, Ipin, Brovary, Ivankiv to understand how a small Ukrainian force defeated Russia in the Battle of Kiv and saved Ukraine because if Kyiv would have fallen, yes, the Ukrainians would never stop fighting, but the Russians would be in the capital.

    The difference with Mariupol is that the Russians had the capability to send more and more forces into the area. So at one point, they had 20,000 Russians going against the brave Mariupol defenders, but they still held out for 80+ days, and it's literally an amazing historical battle. But the terrain was very different. In Kyiv with its such a big area, the Russians sent such a small force. And once they were defeated in the Hostomel airport, they couldn't get more forces in there quickly without being attacked as they were moving into positions. In Mariupol, they were coming out of secure areas, they were able to maneuver more forces. And Ukraine was able to drop the bridges, raise the rivers, and the Ukrainian civilians were able to support the Ukrainian military and Ukraine was able to resupply and other units were to be able to get there, like the airborne and the other divisions. So there're lots of differences, but the bravery of the Ukrainian people will highlight in both battles. And I think the battle of Kyiv was the greatest military defeat of modern history because Russia was not able to achieve its goal of removing the Ukrainian government from the capital.

    Military books would say that an attacking force should outnumber defendants at the tactical level by a ratio of 1:3. I mean, it's a basic rule. Why didn’t they follow it?

    That basic rule is really for open terrain. And as an urban warfare guy, those ratios changed, you need 5:1. And that's what eventually we saw in Mariupol, right? They had 20,000 to 3000, so they actually achieved the ratio. Why didn't they do that in Kyiv? I think it is because they thought that the Ukrainian people and the military would not fight. They thought they could rapidly get into the capital, and they didn't have to surround it and clear it. And maybe they thought they wouldn't even fight, they would just drive in and like a military prey, which is ironical, what happened in the first battle of Grozny: they thought they would just drive in and nobody would fight. But what they found is they weren't welcomed with flowers are welcomed with bullets and RPGs and just a stiff resistance. Their entire plan was backed by faulty intelligence about the Ukrainian people, even their military. I mean, there were just so many errors that were made, but from an urban warfare perspective, they didn't bring the right formations, and they weren't prepared for the fight.

    And finally, how this war will end?

    Without question, this war will end in Ukrainian victory, all of all sovereign Ukrainian land being liberated, and the Russian military being back in Russia. It ends with a stronger Ukraine that's ever existed in history. The Ukrainian people, as a whole, have shown the world that they will be free and that they are strong, they're willing to fight for their freedom. It's an amazing world story. NATO will be stronger than it's ever been since it was created because of Ukraine because we understand Russia is a threat to the world. But this ends in a complete Ukrainian victory.

    *The interview with the expert took place a few days before Putin announced partial mobilization in Russia.

    Just a moment...
    Last edited by bsnub; 26-09-2022 at 08:13 AM.

  10. #8710
    Chinese spy sabang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:08 AM
    Location
    BackinOz
    Posts
    39,470
    ^ What is that drivel doing in the News thread? It is clearly an Opinion piece. Get with the plot, and learn the rules.

  11. #8711
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    89,217
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    ^ What is that drivel doing in the News thread? It is clearly an Opinion piece. Get with the plot, and learn the rules.
    You're right, it belongs here in the drivel thread with every one of your posts.

  12. #8712
    Chinese spy sabang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:08 AM
    Location
    BackinOz
    Posts
    39,470
    Sorted.

  13. #8713
    Chinese spy sabang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:08 AM
    Location
    BackinOz
    Posts
    39,470

    Tick-tock: Putin escalation begins countdown of diplomacy clock

    With news of possible annexation and potential use of nuclear weapons, Washington must put on the brakes and press for talks.


    Recent Ukrainian victories made the Russian government’s declaration of partial mobilization a military necessity from Russia’s point of view. Without this, Russia could not sustain the war in the long term.

    The fact that Putin hesitated for so long before doing this — and that the mobilization is still only partial — is a sign of how much he fears the public reaction in Russia. Wednesday’s mass protests against conscription and the huge increase in people trying to leave Russia indicate that he was right to fear this.

    It also suggests that the Russian government recognizes the extent of its strategic failure. This, and the fact that in his speech Putin made a positive reference to the peace proposals issued by the Ukrainian government last March, suggest that Russia may now be ready for negotiations, as long as they achieve at least some of the Kremlin’s initial goals. But how long will this moment be in our grasp?

    The mobilization, of course, is a significant act of escalation in itself (though also a predictable response to recent Ukrainian battlefield successes). What makes it truly dangerous, however, is that this was announced in tandem with Putin’s endorsement of planned votes in Donbas and other Russian-occupied areas in Ukraine over whether those regions will join the Russian federation.

    If these areas are annexed by Russia, this will make any peace settlement in Ukraine much more difficult for a long time to come.

    The very best that we could then hope for would be a situation like that of Kashmir over the past 75 years: unstable ceasefires punctuated by armed clashes, terrorist attacks, and occasional full-scale war. Along with all the other dangers and suffering caused by such a long-term semi-frozen conflict, it would make it nearly impossible for Ukraine to achieve the sort of progress necessary to join the European Union.

    If on the other hand Ukraine looked as if it was going to reconquer these territories, then nuclear war would become a real possibility. In recent months, former Russian officials have told me that the only circumstances in which they can imagine Russia using nuclear weapons (as hinted in Putin’s speech) would be if Ukraine seemed on the point of capturing Crimea — “because Crimea is Russian land, and in the last resort our nuclear deterrent exists to protect Russian land.” If Kherson and the Donbas also become “Russian land,” then presumably the same applies to them.

    The window of opportunity for a peaceful settlement in Ukraine is therefore narrowing fast. It does however still exist. This is because Putin has not yet declared that Russia will officially recognize the “results” of the referenda and annex these areas to Russia. It should be recalled that the Donbas separatist republics declared their independence from Ukraine in 2014. However, while Russia supported them militarily, it did not recognize their independence until eight years later, on the eve of the Russian invasion of the rest of Ukraine in February.

    This Russian delay was because, in the interim, Russia was engaged in a negotiating process with the West and supported the idea of these areas returning to Ukraine in return for a guarantee of full autonomy. This plan was incorporated in the Minsk II agreement of 2015, which was brokered by France and Germany and accepted by the United States and United Nations. Russia’s progressive loss of faith over the years that Ukraine would ever in fact grant autonomy, or that the West would make them do so, was one key element in Putin’s eventual decision to go to war.

    In other words, the possibility still exists that Russia will pocket the “results” of the referendums as bargaining chips for negotiation but will not move to immediate annexation. This will therefore still leave open the possibility of peace talks. We do not know how long this possibility will exist, but given that time may be extremely short, Washington would be wise to urgently explore it. Western governments need to recognize that “deterring” Russia is no longer enough: Ukrainian courage and Western weapons have already defeated Russian plans to subjugate the whole of Ukraine. Instead, we are now in an escalatory spiral with appalling potential dangers for all sides, which it is urgently necessary to break.

    Any peace initiative will have to come from the United States. France and Germany are too weak to act independently from Washington. The Ukrainian government’s ability to negotiate is crippled by (understandable) fury at the Russian invasion and Russian atrocities; by pressure from Ukrainian hardliners, especially in the military; and, increasingly, by the government’s own rhetoric, which is committing Ukraine to goals (like the recovery of Crimea) that could only be achieved by total military victory over Russia.

    To date, the Biden administration’s position has been that peace negotiations are purely a matter for Ukraine. Together with Russian actions, this stance contributes to making a peace process virtually impossible. It is also both politically and morally wrong. The United States has given military assistance (including intelligence assistance in the killing of Russian commanders) that have made America very nearly a co-belligerent in this war.

    This and U.S.-led sanctions against Russia have caused Americans serious economic loss and involved the United States and its citizens in grave risks. The impact on Washington’s allies in Europe and on the world economy has been even worse, threatening key Western partners with food shortages and internal revolt. In the very worst case, America could face the possibility of annihilation in nuclear war.

    In these circumstances, to say that the United States has no right to engage in negotiations and put forward its own proposals for peace is an abdication of the Biden administration’s moral and constitutional responsibility to the American people. Moreover, the involvement of third parties in brokering peace settlements and proposing their terms is entirely legitimate in terms of international tradition and America’s own past policies elsewhere.

    A peace process cannot be initiated unless both sides abandon preconditions for talks that are completely unacceptable to the other side. A good starting point for talks could be the proposals made by the Ukrainian government itself back in March, which met Russian demands on certain key issues including neutrality. The fact that Putin explicitly and favorably cited Ukraine’s peace proposal in his speech announcing Russia’s partial mobilization may offer a glimmer of hope for diplomacy.

    If the Biden administration does not explore this potential chance of peace, the consequences of a continued escalatory spiral could be disastrous for all concerned. Russia has shown that it retains considerable potential for escalation, both in terms of mobilization and the massive targeting of Ukrainian infrastructure and the Ukrainian government — something that is also very likely to lead to casualties among U.S. advisers in Ukraine.

    China too has the capacity to greatly strengthen the Russian war effort. So far, China has been extremely cautious and has given signs of unhappiness with the war. At the same time, China has been alarmed and infuriated by U.S. statements (like the latest from President Biden) changing Washington’s position on Taiwan.

    For Russia to be gravely weakened by outright defeat in Ukraine would be a severe blow to China’s geopolitical interests, which it is logical to assume that Beijing will try very hard to prevent. American officials should ask themselves whether Putin would have taken these latest steps without at least some agreement from Xi Jinping at the summit in Samarkand last week and what this says about the likely future balance of forces in Ukraine.

    War is a highly unpredictable business, and the course of the Ukraine war has defied the expectations of most analysts, myself included. So far, it has done so to the advantage of the Ukrainians. That will not necessarily always be the case. To seek peace and break the present escalatory spiral is in the interests of Ukraine itself, as well as those of America and the world.

    Tick-tock: Putin escalation begins countdown of diplomacy clock - Responsible Statecraft

  14. #8714
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,079
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    What is that drivel doing in the News thread? It is clearly an Opinion piece. Get with the plot, and learn the rules.
    You snivelling crybaby it is an interview with Maj. John Spencer a highly respected urban warfare expert and combat veteran. You just can't handle honest truth.

    John Spencer - Modern War Institute

  15. #8715
    Chinese spy sabang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:08 AM
    Location
    BackinOz
    Posts
    39,470
    It is an Opinion piece dumbo (from 'hromadske'!), and is now in the megathread. Go cry to the Mods.

  16. #8716
    Thailand Expat OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:59 AM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    25,216
    An opinion on the future manoeuvres.

    From:

    ASB Military News


    "After LPR, DPR, Zaporozhie and Kherson are declared as parts of the Russian Federation, Russia will give Ukraine an ultimatum: “withdraw all your troops from our territory or we will declare war on Ukraine.

    Those territories will became the Russian Federation. Fully fledged.

    No special status, it will be Russia proper from that point on. So Ukrainian troops present in villages and cities of the LPR, DPR, Zaporozhie and Kherson".

    '"This tactic for the Russians for other reasons, the Russian professional army will highly likely move to those new Russian territories the same night that Putin makes them part of the Russian Federation, essentially creating such a large military build up there that Ukraine has little to no chance to ever step a foot on those lands again.

    It also moves the Russian borders right to the front lines of Nikolaev. Meaning Russian manpower will be readily available and large numbers of Russian soldiers will likely be rotated to gain combat experience (rotations were happening the whole time, but nowhere near this level) — all this means that Odessa will become a much easier target. (Not easy, but easier)"

    Telegram: Contact @asbmil
    A tray full of GOLD is not worth a moment in time.

  17. #8717
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    42,920
    Ukraine Says Russia Storing Weapons at Occupied Nuclear Plant

    Kyiv on Thursday accused Moscow of storing heavy weapons at Europe's largest nuclear power plant in occupied Ukrainian territory, after Russia said Ukraine's troops had fired on the facility.


    Ukraine state energy company Energoatom said on social media that Russia had moved over two dozen pieces of military equipment and ammunition into the engine room of the first reactor.


    "The occupiers continue to cynically violate all norms and requirements regarding fire, nuclear and radiation safety of the NPP operation, keeping heavy military equipment, ammunition, weapons and explosives just in the engine room of the power unit of the largest nuclear power plant in Europe," it said.


    Russia earlier on Thursday accused Ukraine of firing this week on the Zaporizhzhia plant, claiming a "catastrophe" was narrowly avoided "by luck."


    Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Kyiv was seeking to create "conditions for a nuclear disaster, not only on its territory, but throughout Europe."

    The Zaporizhzhia plant in southeast Ukraine is the largest in Europe. Russian troops took control of it in March, early in their invasion of Ukraine.


    Zakharova said Ukrainian forces had fired on it twice this week — on July 18 and July 20 — from a drone.


    She said the strike landed "just tens of meters" away from a reactor cooling tank.


    "It was only by luck that this did not lead to damage to the equipment and to a manmade catastrophe," she added.


    Ukraine however said Russia's alleged positioning of weaponry at the plant came at the expense of fire safety norms and that if Russian ammunition is accidentally ignited, the consequences would be disastrous.


    "If a fire occurs, for example, due to the accidental detonation of ammunition, then its scale could be equal to the one that occurred during the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant" in 1986, Energoatom said.


    Moscow-installed authorities in the part of Zaporizhzhia region controlled by Russian troops accused Ukraine of "nuclear terrorism" and said they would appeal to the United Nations.


    The UN's nuclear watchdog said last month it was planning to visit the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, despite protests from Kyiv.

    Ukraine Says Russia Storing Weapons at Occupied Nuclear Plant - The Moscow Times

  18. #8718
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,079
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    Go cry to the Mods.
    Funny you say that, but you are the sniveling crybaby that went to the mods.

    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    Russia will give Ukraine an ultimatum: “withdraw all your troops from our territory or we will declare war on Ukraine.


    The Russian military is a hollowed out shell that is currently getting its teeth kicked in. Ukraine is on the move again.

  19. #8719
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,079
    Proof that Ukraine is advancing on the Svatove/Lyman front. This first video shows Ukraine advancing yesterday. The vehicle is an M113 with a browning M2 50 caliber machine gun. I know these well, as I served in the US Army and rode around in these things a lot. I only need to look at the very start of the video to confirm what this vehicle is, the sound of the engine further confirms it. Russian engines do not run that smooth. The reason I am mentioning all this is that this comes from twitter and the Russian propagandists are trying to falsely claim that this video is the Russians advancing. A full on lie.

    I present you with the video in question and a second video below, that of the M113 in operation. Listen closely to the engine and make sure to look at the M2 fifty in both videos. I think you can see that Ukraine is on the move again in Donetsk.

    Looks like the end of days in Lyman - YouTube

    Last edited by bsnub; 26-09-2022 at 06:21 PM.

  20. #8720
    Excommunicated baldrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:30 AM
    Posts
    24,375
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    Putin escalation
    have you finally moved from the denial stage and now acknowledge that russia is the aggressor in this war ?

    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    “withdraw all your troops from our territory or we will declare war on Ukraine.
    would that make it acceptable for Ukraine to then launch attacks to the east ? missiles and rockets ?

  21. #8721
    Thailand Expat HermantheGerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    06-12-2022 @ 03:04 PM
    Location
    Germany/Satthahip
    Posts
    6,994
    Isn't that cute? Now they are shooting at each other


    KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A young man shot a Russian military officer at close range at an enlistment office Monday, in an unusually bold attack reflecting resistance to the Russian leadership’s efforts to mobilize hundreds of thousands of men to wage war on Ukraine.
    The shooting comes after scattered arson attacks on enlistment offices and protests in Russian cities against the call-up that have resulted in at least 2,000 arrests. Russia is seeking to bolster its military as its Ukraine offensive has bogged down and sapped its forces.

    Russian military recruiter shot at enlistment office amid troop call-up | PBS NewsHour

  22. #8722
    Thailand Expat HermantheGerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    06-12-2022 @ 03:04 PM
    Location
    Germany/Satthahip
    Posts
    6,994
    And that's even cuter . Wadda guy

    The head of the Russian Orthodox Church said that Russian soldiers dying in the war against Ukraine would be forgiven, a few days after the partial mobilization ordered by President Vladimir Putin.

    Patriarch Kirill is an ally of Putin and has supported the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He has criticized those who oppose the war in the past and called on the Russians to rally around the Kremlin.

  23. #8723
    Thailand Expat David48atTD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Palace Far from Worries
    Posts
    14,773
    The Russia-Ukraine war will not end soon but post-war planning must start now

    1/3

    While there is little prospect of the Russia-Ukraine war being over this year, it may now be time to ask such questions about this conflict.
    And the most important question, because this outcome looks very likely, what happens when Ukraine wins?

    The groundwork for understanding and resolving issues related to post-war Ukraine should be laid now, even as combat operations continue.
    Planning beyond the end of conflict provides added purpose for those who must fight.

    It also provides a light at the end of the tunnel for Ukrainian civilians and displaced persons.

    And importantly, having a view to the post-war world can help shape Ukrainian and Western strategy for the war over the next year or so.


    Three issues facing Ukraine post war

    There are several major issues for resolution. Some of the most important include security guarantees, reconstruction, building a standardised military, and the status of Russian minorities.

    This is not an exclusive list but these issues highlight the fact that wide-ranging but integrated post-war planning must begin soon.
    In the wake of this war, assuming Ukraine prevails, it will require a security framework to protect it from future Russian aggression.

    The geography is such that Ukraine and Russia are stuck with each other. To that end, the United States and NATO will probably have to continue to provide security assistance to Ukraine in the coming years and decades.

    Whether this involves NATO membership or not, Ukraine will require security assurances. Quiet discussions about this matter are probably already occurring and will need to be part of any enduring settlement for the war.

    It will inevitably be part of the revised European security architecture that will emerge from this war.

    HERE
    Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago ...


  24. #8724
    Thailand Expat David48atTD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Palace Far from Worries
    Posts
    14,773
    Reconstruction is a second major issue.

    2/3

    The magnitude of rebuilding Ukrainian infrastructure is beyond the capacity of Ukraine alone.

    The World Bank and European Commission recently estimated reconstruction in Ukraine will cost at least US$349 billion ($534 billion) to remediate damage already done in this war. This will require direct aid from multiple nations as well as EU and World Bank assistance.

    It will be a task at a scale not seen thus far this country. And it will be an undertaking that must be transparent and fully accountable for the Ukrainian people and the international community.

    ---

    A third issue for resolution will be the reconstruction of the Ukrainian military.

    Before the war, the Ukrainian Armed Forces were largely equipped with Soviet era weapons and equipment.
    During the war, they have begun a transition to NATO standards for logistics.
    They have also been armed with a hodgepodge of Western arms.

    This might work for a short time in an existential fight, but it is unsustainable in the longer term.
    Effective military institutions require standardised equipment and training for simplicity and cost effectiveness.

    To achieve this, the Ukrainian military has to be rearmed after this war with a NATO standard and affordable army and air force. While US Foreign Military Financing will be part of the solution in providing grants and loans to purchase US military equipment, all NATO countries may be required to play a role.

  25. #8725
    Thailand Expat David48atTD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Palace Far from Worries
    Posts
    14,773
    How Russians in Ukraine are treated

    3/3

    In every war, belligerents normally undertake activities that dehumanise their enemies. This serves to unify a population behind the war's aims, and to make it easier for soldiers to kill their adversaries.

    The Russo-Ukraine War is no different.
    The Russians have essentially treated Ukrainians as a sub-class of people to be abused, tortured, and exterminated, as seen in Bucha and Izyum.

    But Ukraine, in calling Russian soldier 'orcs' has also engaged in dehumanising the Russian invaders.
    While this is an understandable and very human impulse, it does pose challenges for a post-war Ukraine that will still have Russian minority populations.

    The data on ethnic Russians in Ukraine is fuzzy as the last Ukrainian census was conducted in 2001.
    Back then, a little over 17 per cent of respondents identified themselves as Russian.

    In a post war Ukraine
    , the government will need to cater to its ethnic Russian citizens, roll back dehumanisation that might have occurred during the war, while also transparently dealing with ethnic Russians and Ukrainians who might have collaborated with Russian occupiers.
    It will be a difficult task.

    This is just a small selection of the many tasks that will face the Ukrainian government in the wake of this war.

    Author:- Mick Ryan is a strategist and recently retired Australian Army major general.
    He served in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan, and as a strategist on the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Page 349 of 441 FirstFirst ... 249299339341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357359399 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (2 members and 4 guests)

  1. sabang

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •