Assault on Kiev: Russian helicopters swoop above Ukraine's capital

[Kwasaki]

20 minutes ago, jvs said:

I do not agree at all!

If this would happen it would mean the bully(Russia) wins and what is going to stop

them from doing it again?

Ukraine should not stop fighting until all the territory has been taken back and that

should include Crimea .

Remember the Ukrainian army is fighting the battle for Nato and they are the only ones getting damaged.

The Nato people should not stop supporting the Ukraine until Russia pulls back.

Yes it costs a lot of money but for the rest of Europe it is and will remain cheaper then fighting the Russians in other(their own) countries.

I think Russia already understand very well that if they would attack any Nato member it would be game over for Putin.

They talk a lot but imo they know really well themselves it is only talk and preaching to the choir.

That's been gone over all before, Russia has no intention of entering any NATO country that's why it invaded Ukraine now before it became a member of NATO to gain territories it wants. 

[gearbox]

On 7/5/2022 at 9:18 PM, peterfranks said:

I have stopped following the developments in this war about a month ago, but can someone explain this to me.

 

Russia is destroying Ukraine completely, but if Ukraine targets something over the border with Russia, that is declared illegal. At least that is what Russia claims.

I'm confident that Ukraine owns weaponry that can destroy targets far inside Russia, maybe even as far as Moscow.

 

So why doesn't this happen, since this is a war between 2 countries?

A country which has 6000 nuclear warheads invaded a country with zero nuclear warheads. The Russians probably would tolerate a stray rocket landing on their territory, but any big strike with a lot of casualties can trigger use of tactical nuclear weapons, which would be game over for Ukraine.

 

The countries supplying weapons know that very well, hence no long range missiles are provided.

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

That's been gone over all before, Russia has no intention of entering any NATO country that's why it invaded Ukraine now before it became a member of NATO to gain territories it wants. 

I think that's a little naive.

 

It first invaded Ukraine in 2014 and took Crimea before it joined NATO, Putin from that point onwards knew well enough that Ukraine would never be able join because of NATO's restraint, they would never let Ukraine join and then as a result have to evoke article 5 immediately, that would be W111.

 

Putin knew that. This is now the second phase of his invasion, originally to take the whole of Ukraine but failed miserably, now rolled back to take Donetsk and the region. Then have a break, regroup, tell the world he is willing for peace talks (on his terms) which are totally unacceptable, attempt to create divide in the alliance before getting on with his goals which have not changed.

 

The whole of Ukraine territory and its very valuable resources. Its already taken control of 80% of Ukraine's oil and gas deposits in the Black Sea along with billions of dollars worth of infrastructure now added to Russian supply and exports.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

10 minutes ago, gearbox said:

A country which has 6000 nuclear warheads invaded a country with zero nuclear warheads. The Russians probably would tolerate a stray rocket landing on their territory, but any big strike with a lot of casualties can trigger use of tactical nuclear weapons, which would be game over for Ukraine.

 

The countries supplying weapons know that very well, hence no long range missiles are provided.

Why does Ukraine have no Nuclear warheads when it used to be the third biggest in the world?

[jvs]

37 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

That's been gone over all before, Russia has no intention of entering any NATO country that's why it invaded Ukraine now before it became a member of NATO to gain territories it wants. 

Putin says he wants all territory back that belonged to the USSR before,from memory i recall some of these countries are now NATO members.

What will Putin do about this?

I think only talk,Putin does not have the men or equipment to invade any one else,certainly not at this moment.

The sanctions are slowly taking effect,Russia needs parts and precision technical

instruments they can not produce themselves.

Aviation is one of those .

 

[gearbox]

26 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Why does Ukraine have no Nuclear warheads when it used to be the third biggest in the world?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

 

"In 1993, International relations theorist and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer published an article including his prediction that a Ukraine without any nuclear deterrent was likely to be subjected to aggression by Russia, but this was very much a minority view at the time.^[8]"

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, gearbox said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

 

"In 1993, International relations theorist and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer published an article including his prediction that a Ukraine without any nuclear deterrent was likely to be subjected to aggression by Russia, but this was very much a minority view at the time.^[8]"

Actually it gave them up because of the Budapest Memorandum, signed on 5 December 1994, Ukraine exchanged nuclear weapons for pledges by the three powers (i.e. Russia, US & UK) “to respect the independence, sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and to refrain from the “threat or use of force” against the country. ' 

 

as mentioned in @LosLobo in his post on the previous page. 

 

However we all know Russia broke this agreement when Ukraine was invaded in 2014. Very convenient for them now that Ukraine had given up its nuclear weapons based on Russia's promise of never invading.

 

Ukraine called a meeting...........

There was a meeting of the signatories of the memorandum that was called by Ukraine and it took place in Paris. The foreign minister of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, who was in Paris at the time, simply did not show up. So he wouldn't even come to the meeting in connection with the memorandum.

[Russia argues that it] signed it with a different government, not with this "illegitimate" one. But that, of course, does not stand to any international legal kind of criteria. You don't sign agreements with the government, you sign it with the country.

 

 

 

 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Fair call. 

 

Sanctions doesn't reduce Russia's capability to product weapons they are one of the world's biggest weapon suppliers.

As regards to inferior weapons they are still effective and can be produced rapidly.

 

It takes time to train Ukraine soldiers to use advanced weaponry this needs to be addressed so that there can be more in the field it's a big problem for them. 

 

I don't see Russia pausing they have made enough mistakes. 

 

A negotiated peace will only be possible with Ukraine giving up the Russian gained territories.

Ukraine should think about that they wouldn't have to rebuild a great deal of mess that has pursued.

 

Agree the west should continue to support but at what cost and how long will it be before Ukraine is told enough is enough.

Hopefully the Russian population also will say enough is enough. 

 

A reasonable reply, but I disagree on three points:

 

Russia may have to pause even if military logic dictates against it.  High casualty rates and exhaustion take a toll.

 

I think it is too early to say if and how much territory Ukraine should give up for a peace agreement.

 

No nation is paying nearly the price for Ukraine's independence than Ukraine.  I still maintain that as long as Ukraine is willing to fight, the west should support it to the best of our abilities.

[Bkk Brian]

48 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Russia may have to pause even if military logic dictates against it.  High casualty rates and exhaustion take a toll.

Not sure how long this will last but yesterdays update from ISW.

 

"There were no claimed or assessed Russian territorial gains in Ukraine on July 6 for the first time in 133 days of war, supporting ISW’s assessment that Russian forces have largely initiated an operational pause."

 

"It means, in this case, that Russian forces will likely confine themselves to relatively small-scale offensive actions as they attempt to set conditions for more significant offensive operations and rebuild the combat power needed to attempt those more ambitious undertakings."

 

This from BBC Russian service via a tweet:

 The Russian military lost 11 ammunition depots in 9 days - BBC. These depots were in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine.

[Kwasaki]

3 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

I think that's a little naive.

 

It first invaded Ukraine in 2014 and took Crimea before it joined NATO, Putin from that point onwards knew well enough that Ukraine would never be able join because of NATO's restraint, they would never let Ukraine join and then as a result have to evoke article 5 immediately, that would be W111.

 

Putin knew that. This is now the second phase of his invasion, originally to take the whole of Ukraine but failed miserably, now rolled back to take Donetsk and the region. Then have a break, regroup, tell the world he is willing for peace talks (on his terms) which are totally unacceptable, attempt to create divide in the alliance before getting on with his goals which have not changed.

 

The whole of Ukraine territory and its very valuable resources. Its already taken control of 80% of Ukraine's oil and gas deposits in the Black Sea along with billions of dollars worth of infrastructure now added to Russian supply and exports.

 

 

I don't understand your reply, I said Russia will not attack NATO. 

[Kwasaki]

3 hours ago, jvs said:

Putin says he wants all territory back that belonged to the USSR before,from memory i recall some of these countries are now NATO members.

What will Putin do about this?

I think only talk,Putin does not have the men or equipment to invade any one else,certainly not at this moment.

The sanctions are slowly taking effect,Russia needs parts and precision technical

instruments they can not produce themselves.

Aviation is one of those .

 

I have said Putin and in addition or Russia will not attack NATO.

Russia builds there own planes they have the resources to do so. 

[Kwasaki]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

A reasonable reply, but I disagree on three points:

 

Russia may have to pause even if military logic dictates against it.  High casualty rates and exhaustion take a toll.

 

I think it is too early to say if and how much territory Ukraine should give up for a peace agreement.

 

No nation is paying nearly the price for Ukraine's independence than Ukraine.  I still maintain that as long as Ukraine is willing to fight, the west should support it to the best of our abilities.

I would concur fair points again.

[Kwasaki]

2 hours ago, gearbox said:

History is full of examples when a stronger side breaks an agreement with a weaker side. Nothing new here. Unfair but a fact.

 

US, Canada and Australia are countries founded on broken agreements, stolen land and genocide.

 

Unfortunately in current times the only reliable deterrent is nukes, either have them or belong to a military pact that has them. Even that may not work, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus is an example. However enough nukes used will end the world as we know it.

To talk now of Ukraine not having nukes is pointless I cannot see nukes being used unless Russia is nuclear attacked, I hope I'm right. ????

[Rimmer]

Off topic post and reply removed

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

10 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

I don't understand your reply, I said Russia will not attack NATO. 

You did but you also said this below with my highlights added:

 

4 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

That's been gone over all before, Russia has no intention of entering any NATO country that's why it invaded Ukraine now before it became a member of NATO to gain territories it wants. 

My reply was clearly in response to that understand now?

 

Regards your other point of not attacking a NATO member, a direct attack by Russia against a NATO country would be unlikely but surely you are aware of false flag operations that can draw in countries. Again stop being so naive.

[Kwasaki]

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You did but you also said this below with my highlights added:

 

My reply was clearly in response to that understand now?

 

Regards your other point of not attacking a NATO member, a direct attack by Russia against a NATO country would be unlikely but surely you are aware of false flag operations that can draw in countries. Again stop being so naive.

Your actuation of naivety has no merit,  I understand perfectly well the whole nature of Russia's invasion thankyou. 

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Your actuation of naivety has no merit,  I understand perfectly well the whole nature of Russia's invasion thankyou. 

Strange that you failed to notice what my response was referring to then, you're welcome

[LosLobo]

58 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Russia builds there own planes they have the resources to do so. 

 

6 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Sanctions doesn't reduce Russia's capability to product weapons they are one of the world's biggest weapon suppliers.

Have you ever considered supporting your claims with a citation?

 

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens Razor.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

 

I have been generous in supplying a citation to dispute your claims although the onus of the "burden of proof" is your responsibility not mine.

 

"Controls placed on Russia's aerospace sector were hammering its ability to generate revenue and support military aviation"

 

"Russia may be forced to ground between half and two-thirds of its commercial aircraft in the next four years in order to cannibalize them for spare parts"

https://www.reuters.com/technology/chip-exports-russia-plunged-by-90-after-curbs-us-official-2022-06-29/
 

[Mavideol]

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

I have said Putin and in addition or Russia will not attack NATO.

Russia builds there own planes they have the resources to do so. 

again baseless comments as no supporting data provided, none of your posts have any supporting claims and are misleading and yet they keep allowing you to post, for once just give us some links to support such a non sense

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

I have said Putin and in addition or Russia will not attack NATO.

Russia builds there own planes they have the resources to do so. 

Because of international sanctions brought on by their invasion in Ukraine, Russia cant even build its own cars anymore let alone planes ????

 

Sanctions Send Russian Cars Back To The 20th Century Without Air Bags And Other Features

Lada Granta, the “Classic.” Designed to be made using only parts made locally or by its allies, the bare-bones car costs just 761,000 rubles. Sold without a number of safety features, like ABS, passenger-side airbags, or even air conditioning, it is powered by a 90 hp (67 kW/91 PS) 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine that fails to meet current European emissions standards. In fact, it only meets emissions regulations from 1996

[coolcarer]

According to the Defense reporter with the Kyiv Independent there are now 9 HIMARS in Ukraine

 

Wow, we now reportedly have 9 HIMARSs and M270s
https://twitter.com/iaponomarenko/status/1544984633623941120

 

[Kwasaki]

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

 

Have you ever considered supporting your claims with a citation?

 

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens Razor.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

 

I have been generous in supplying a citation to dispute your claims although the onus of the "burden of proof" is your responsibility not mine.

 

"Controls placed on Russia's aerospace sector were hammering its ability to generate revenue and support military aviation"

 

"Russia may be forced to ground between half and two-thirds of its commercial aircraft in the next four years in order to cannibalize them for spare parts"

https://www.reuters.com/technology/chip-exports-russia-plunged-by-90-after-curbs-us-official-2022-06-29/
 

Hows the war going.

If you want to believe western media onesided nonsense up to you.

What realty is there needed to support my claims it's futile it's common knowledge and the fact that you do not want to believe it again is up to you.

I believe Chris B would support what I say but where is he after you and your mob hi-jacked his thread. 

 

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Because of international sanctions brought on by their invasion in Ukraine, Russia cant even build its own cars anymore let alone planes ????

 

Sanctions Send Russian Cars Back To The 20th Century Without Air Bags And Other Features

Lada Granta, the “Classic.” Designed to be made using only parts made locally or by its allies, the bare-bones car costs just 761,000 rubles. Sold without a number of safety features, like ABS, passenger-side airbags, or even air conditioning, it is powered by a 90 hp (67 kW/91 PS) 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine that fails to meet current European emissions standards. In fact, it only meets emissions regulations from 1996

Best I continue to ignore you I think, the world will just have to wait for the final outcome.

[LosLobo]

28 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Hows the war going.

If you want to believe western media onesided nonsense up to you.

What realty is there needed to support my claims and futile it's common knowledge and the fact that you do not want to believe it again is up to you.

I believe Chris B would support what I say but where is he after you and your mob hi-jacked his thread. 

Deflection asking about the Ukraine war is not going to help you!

Your previous excuse for not posting a citation was that you were unable to master <Ctrl+C> <Ctrl+V>. 

 

Then it was because you only get your information from TV.

 

Now are you actually being honest and saying that none of your claims can be supported by realty<sic>?

You may say that the earth is flat and that it's common knowledge but if you don't post evidence to support your claim, discussion and your post is pointless.
 

[TacoKhun]

7 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Actually it gave them up because of the Budapest Memorandum, signed on 5 December 1994, Ukraine exchanged nuclear weapons for pledges by the three powers (i.e. Russia, US & UK) “to respect the independence, sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and to refrain from the “threat or use of force” against the country. ' 

 

as mentioned in @LosLobo in his post on the previous page. 

 

However we all know Russia broke this agreement when Ukraine was invaded in 2014. Very convenient for them now that Ukraine had given up its nuclear weapons based on Russia's promise of never invading.

 

Ukraine called a meeting...........

There was a meeting of the signatories of the memorandum that was called by Ukraine and it took place in Paris. The foreign minister of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, who was in Paris at the time, simply did not show up. So he wouldn't even come to the meeting in connection with the memorandum.

[Russia argues that it] signed it with a different government, not with this "illegitimate" one. But that, of course, does not stand to any international legal kind of criteria. You don't sign agreements with the government, you sign it with the country.

 

 

 

 

1. Memorandum was an option to safe face. The giving up of nuclear weapons was an offer one cant refuse, neither US or Russia was interested in Ukraine having any, because the delivery devices were capable of hitting US and every other NATO country. If Ukraine declined then USSR might have decided to not give independence to soviet states. 

2. Nuclear weapon is very expensive to maintain and requires advanced technology, Ukraine as a poor country could not afford that and did not have the required technology, since the rockets were not produced by Ukraine alone but whole USSR.

3. The launch codes were in Russia hands and it was virtually impossible to operate the rockets.

4. While rockets were stationed in Ukraine territory, it did not belong to it, the rockets were a product of whole USSR nuclear program.

 

Basically nuclear weapons were no use to Ukraine back then and nobody could predict, what will happen in the future, especially taking in mind the promise not to expand NATO border towards Russia. History could go other way, and Ukraine would be allied with Russia and possible target for NATO, US could not risk that, therefore the deal of giving up nuclear weapons was arranged, all the speculation of leaving weapon in Ukraine hands just hindsight. 

 

One can speculate that already back then Ukraine was a potential target for US and memorandum was more targeted towards US and NATO then towards Russia, having the plans in mind US insisted on giving up nuclear weapons to Russia, the risk of leaving it in Ukraine hand was too big.

[farmerjo]

On 7/6/2022 at 6:01 PM, coolcarer said:

I suspect if he will attempt to stop after Donbas and frame it that he is offering peace talks to stop the fighting and allow transit of grain. He’s Russian and a slime ball. He will be hoping this chess move will divide the western alliance. In reality that’s all it is, a chess move to take the bigger prize at a later date.

 

The trolls and propagandists will be jumping for joy saying it’s the west that are war mongering and not up for negotiations when anyone with an iq of 1 let alone genius level 140 amongst us can see it for what it really is.

 

There is only one way to stop this and that is with resolve and force until peace talks are called by Ukraine when they are in a much stronger position.

So your getting ready for a i told you so post.

[LosLobo]

16 minutes ago, TacoKhun said:

1. Memorandum was an option to safe face. The giving up of nuclear weapons was an offer one cant refuse, neither US or Russia was interested in Ukraine having any, because the delivery devices were capable of hitting US and every other NATO country. If Ukraine declined then USSR might have decided to not give independence to soviet states. 

2. Nuclear weapon is very expensive to maintain and requires advanced technology, Ukraine as a poor country could not afford that and did not have the required technology, since the rockets were not produced by Ukraine alone but whole USSR.

3. The launch codes were in Russia hands and it was virtually impossible to operate the rockets.

4. While rockets were stationed in Ukraine territory, it did not belong to it, the rockets were a product of whole USSR nuclear program.

 

Basically nuclear weapons were no use to Ukraine back then and nobody could predict, what will happen in the future, especially taking in mind the promise not to expand NATO border towards Russia. History could go other way, and Ukraine would be allied with Russia and possible target for NATO, US could not risk that, therefore the deal of giving up nuclear weapons was arranged, all the speculation of leaving weapon in Ukraine hands just hindsight. 

If Putin signed a Peace Treaty now it would only be for him "to save face" because he is unable to further prosecute a successful total war with Ukraine at this moment. 

 

So would you then suggest that the agreement was invalid because "saving face" is a legitimate out for Putin, to break the "Peace Agreement" when he has replenished retrained and rearmed his forces?

In my mind an agreement is always valid irrespective of the reasons for signing it!

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, TacoKhun said:

 

2. Nuclear weapon is very expensive to maintain and requires advanced technology, Ukraine as a poor country could not afford that and did not have the required technology, since the rockets were not

 

Can you please share that insight with Kim Jong-un?

[TacoKhun]

Just now, LosLobo said:

If Putin signed a Peace Treaty now it would only be for him "to save face" because he is unable to further prosecute a successful total war with Ukraine at this moment. 

 

So would you then suggest that the agreement was invalid because "saving face" is a legitimate out for Putin, to break the "Peace Agreement" when he has replenished retrained and rearmed his forces?

In my mind an agreement is always valid irrespective of the reasons for signing it!

I dont understand why you writing this to me, it was not in US interest to give a country nuclear weapons that can hit the US territory, therefore there was no choice for Ukraine to have it, memorandum or not. If Ukraine declined the memorandum, then there would be something else.

[TacoKhun]

Just now, placeholder said:

Can you please share that insight with Kim Jong-un?

Today 2022, 32 after Ukraine signed the memorandum and Kim still have no long range delivery devices, and what his weapons are capable of no one really knows.