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

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No, he's a Conservative who doesn't want to go to war 

You accused heybruce, who has definitely not advocated sending troops to Ukraine, but has vociferously supported arming that nation, of being a left winger. In what way does his advocacy differ from Boris Johnson's? Not at all, as far as I can see. So, by your logic, Johnson must be a left-winger, too.

[tgw]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

This needs to be confirmed yet but its not looking good:

 

Russia has just bombed another large hospital in Mariupol. 300 people feared dead. A new, larger bomb was used. Explosion was heard 100km away.

Asovstal is the last remaining pocket - why are they still bombing outside of the steel plant ?

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You accused heybruce, who has definitely not advocated sending troops to Ukraine, but has vociferously supported arming that nation, of being a left winger. In what way does his advocacy differ from Boris Johnson's? Not at all, as far as I can see. So, by your logic, Johnson must be a left-winger, too.

That's a bit too confusing for me 

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

You accused heybruce, who has definitely not advocated sending troops to Ukraine, but has vociferously supported arming that nation, of being a left winger. In what way does his advocacy differ from Boris Johnson's? Not at all, as far as I can see. So, by your logic, Johnson must be a left-winger, too.

I'm always amused by the tag left-winger, translation socialist.

Most Americans abhor socialism, while not realizing there is a very large socialist organization in their midst, and abroad representing them. It's called the US military.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

That's a bit too confusing for me 

Let me simplify it for you. According to you, strongly advocating for advanced and powerful weaponry for Ukraine, as heybruce does, means one is a left winger. Boris Johnson strongly advocates for advanced and powerful weaponry for Ukraine. Therefore, Boris Johnson is a left winger.

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, tgw said:

Asovstal is the last remaining pocket - why are they still bombing outside of the steel plant ?

Yea thats why I put yet to be confirmed, lets see what transpires and if it gets into main stream media, they are certainly using bunker busting bombs but I thought they were for the steelworks to. 

 

Reports show Russia preparing 3-ton bomb to drop on Mariupol

 

The FAB-3000 is an unguided 3,000 kilograms (6,600 pounds) bomb, which was primarily designed for the destruction of industrial, urban, and port facilities. This type of bomb was used by both Soviet bombers, the Tupolev Tu-16 and the Tupolev Tu-22M, during the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s.  

 

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/30700-russia-feared-to-use-soviet-3-ton-bomb-in-mariupol

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Let me simplify it for you. According to you, strongly advocating for advanced and powerful weaponry for Ukraine, as heybruce does, means one is a left winger. Boris Johnson strongly advocates for advanced and powerful weaponry for Ukraine. Therefore, Boris Johnson is a left winger.

No, quite a few Left wingers want a war with Russia,  or a confrontation at least .

Right wingers typically want to keep out of the war between Russia and Ukraine and let them both get on with it 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yea thats why I put yet to be confirmed, lets see what transpires and if it gets into main stream media, they are certainly using bunker busting bombs but I thought they were for the steelworks to. 

 

Reports show Russia preparing 3-ton bomb to drop on Mariupol

 

The FAB-3000 is an unguided 3,000 kilograms (6,600 pounds) bomb, which was primarily designed for the destruction of industrial, urban, and port facilities. This type of bomb was used by both Soviet bombers, the Tupolev Tu-16 and the Tupolev Tu-22M, during the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s.  

 

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/30700-russia-feared-to-use-soviet-3-ton-bomb-in-mariupol

 

Russia is getting worse and worse. My patience with the Russian shills as well with every story like this. That would have to amount to indiscriminate bombing and therefore also a war crime. There is no defending such an act as not being a war crime.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No, quite a few Left wingers want a war with Russia,  or a confrontation at least .

Right wingers typically want to keep out of the war between Russia and Ukraine and let them both get on with it 

Again, show us where anyone said they wanted a war with Russia. I see what you did there, shifting the goal posts from "attacking Russia" to "war with Russia". Right wingers want to stay out of it because they favour fascism and supression of democracy as their only means to retain power.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Russia is getting worse and worse. My patience with the Russian shills as well with every story like this. That would have to amount to indiscriminate bombing and therefore also a war crime. There is no defending such an act as not being a war crime.

To be honest how anyone can ignore whats actually going on and instead prefers "whataboutary" and anything other that the war crimes and the attack going on right now has no respect from me whatsoever

[tgw]

16 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No, quite a few Left wingers want a war with Russia,  or a confrontation at least .

Right wingers typically want to keep out of the war between Russia and Ukraine and let them both get on with it 

I like this post.

You demonstrated the link between Putin's war in Ukraine and  why Putin has been using covert media, fake news and manipulative covert advertising to influence right wingers.

 

 

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No, quite a few Left wingers want a war with Russia,  or a confrontation at least .

Right wingers typically want to keep out of the war between Russia and Ukraine and let them both get on with it 

Not quite. Actually, there's a huge movement on the right that sees Putin as a defender of traditional values including lots of American evangelical leaders.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/putin-trump-le-pen-hungary-france-populist-bannon/512303/

https://www.france24.com/en/20161115-why-west-right-wing-admires-putin-le-pen-farage-trump

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUK108033924420141231

https://religiondispatches.org/a-twisted-love-story-how-american-evangelicals-helped-make-putins-russia-and-how-russia-became-the-darling-of-the-american-right/

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-hate-putin-americans-suffer

[ozimoron]

Putin may well be contemplating a lightning strike into Finland and/or Sweden, not necessarily to seize Helsinki or Stockholm or topple the governments, but just to hold enough of a piece of their territories to ignite a conflict and effectively disqualify them from NATO membership. The unwritten catch-22 NATO rule that trapped Ukraine in a legal limbo for 20 years could do the same for the two Scandinavian aspirants now. No country in a conflict situation can expect to be admitted as long as the conflict exists, because it automatically would bring the fighting to NATO under Article 5’s collective defense mandate.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3272099-will-nato-defy-putin-and-allow-finland-and-sweden-to-join/

[Hummin]

16 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Putin may well be contemplating a lightning strike into Finland and/or Sweden, not necessarily to seize Helsinki or Stockholm or topple the governments, but just to hold enough of a piece of their territories to ignite a conflict and effectively disqualify them from NATO membership. The unwritten catch-22 NATO rule that trapped Ukraine in a legal limbo for 20 years could do the same for the two Scandinavian aspirants now. No country in a conflict situation can expect to be admitted as long as the conflict exists, because it automatically would bring the fighting to NATO under Article 5’s collective defense mandate.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3272099-will-nato-defy-putin-and-allow-finland-and-sweden-to-join/

If he attack Sweden and Finland, there will be 100 000 recruits from  all over Europe ready to fight, and Nato will intervene for sure. Finland and Sweden have a modern and solid army, and russians is not capable to hold the lines, and expect Finland and Sweden moving forces to Ukraine to weaken their lines there to. Putin will start 3 world war by doing so Guaranteed.

 

The brutality we have seen by russians by now, was expected just by looking back on the Chechen wars.

 

Sweden have the air-force and Finland the land force with high mobility. 

[tgw]

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

If he attack Sweden and Finland, there will be 100 000 recruits from  all over Europe ready to fight, and Nato will intervene for sure. Finland and Sweden have a modern and solid army, and russians is not capable to hold the lines, and expect Finland and Sweden moving forces to Ukraine to weaken their lines there to. Putin will start 3 world war by doing so Guaranteed.

 

The brutality we have seen by russians by now, was expected just by looking back on the Chechen wars.

 

Sweden have the air-force and Finland the land force with high mobility. 

erm ... attack with what ?

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, tgw said:

erm ... attack with what ?

Did you read the post i quoted?

[2 is 1]

22 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Putin may well be contemplating a lightning strike into Finland and/or Sweden, not necessarily to seize Helsinki or Stockholm or topple the governments, but just to hold enough of a piece of their territories to ignite a conflict and effectively disqualify them from NATO membership. The unwritten catch-22 NATO rule that trapped Ukraine in a legal limbo for 20 years could do the same for the two Scandinavian aspirants now. No country in a conflict situation can expect to be admitted as long as the conflict exists, because it automatically would bring the fighting to NATO under Article 5’s collective defense mandate.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3272099-will-nato-defy-putin-and-allow-finland-and-sweden-to-join/

This kind speculation is what it is. Has been going on here in Finland any kind point of view.

And its meaningless, Finland going to request NATO membership before June and we will see what Russia going to do. But if NATO hold down Finland application because some action from Russians then it shows how weak it is! If Russian provocation make NATO to back off. If (BIG IF) Putin try to attack here in Finland he going to hit hes head to "Karjala" pine tree like all hes forefathers before! Finland has anyway one of the most powerful army in Europe and we can put arm's almost 1 million men whitch all has get military training!

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, 2 is 1 said:

This kind speculation is what it is. Has been going on here in Finland any kind point of view.

And its meaningless, Finland going to request NATO membership before June and we will see what Russia going to do. But if NATO hold down Finland application because some action from Russians then it shows how weak it is! If Russian provocation make NATO to back off. If (BIG IF) Putin try to attack here in Finland he going to hit hes head to "Karjala" pine tree like all hes forefathers before! Finland has anyway one of to most powerful army in Europe and we can put arm's almost 1 million men whitch all has get military training!

It's impossible for Finland to join NATO before June 29. See linked article.

[2 is 1]

18 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's impossible for Finland to join NATO before June 29. See linked article.

They sent application i know schedule! Every NATO country need accept first! That take 4 to 12 month!

[tgw]

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Did you read the post i quoted?

yes, my point is Putin doesn't have anything to attack with ????

 

but I quoted the wrong post 555

 

26 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Putin may well be contemplating a lightning strike into Finland and/or Sweden, not necessarily to seize Helsinki or Stockholm or topple the governments, but just to hold enough of a piece of their territories to ignite a conflict and effectively disqualify them from NATO membership. The unwritten catch-22 NATO rule that trapped Ukraine in a legal limbo for 20 years could do the same for the two Scandinavian aspirants now. No country in a conflict situation can expect to be admitted as long as the conflict exists, because it automatically would bring the fighting to NATO under Article 5’s collective defense mandate.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3272099-will-nato-defy-putin-and-allow-finland-and-sweden-to-join/

 

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, tgw said:

erm ... attack with what ?

Tactical nuclear weapons or empty vodka bottles....

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, tgw said:

yes, my point is Putin doesn't have anything to attack with ????

 

but I quoted the wrong post 555

 

 

Thats another question what he is going to attack with, still Russia is ranked nr 1. as Europe’s strongest army, mostly based on their amount of nuclear arsenal, and also number of potential troopers.

 

I do not think Putin will do so,  but who knows. 
 

Nato need to make a clear statement that if he do so, they will intervene. There is no way back after that in my opinion. Two more  peaceful countries attacked after invasion of Ukraine by Putin is game on and game over for the world we know. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

36 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The unwritten catch-22 NATO rule that trapped Ukraine in a legal limbo for 20 years could do the same for the two Scandinavian aspirants now.

What does that actually mean ?

Is it a rule or not ?

If its not an actual rule, NATO do not have to abide by it and thus the whole article is scare mongering nonsense

[2 is 1]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

What does that actually mean ?

Is it a rule or not ?

If its not an actual rule, NATO do not have to abide by it and thus the whole article is scare mongering nonsense

I think NATO has rule that they cant take new member if that country is war at the time.

[ozimoron]

12 minutes ago, 2 is 1 said:

I think NATO has rule that they cant take new member if that country is war at the time.

I read that they can't if borders are disputed. Probably both reasons apply.

[Mac Mickmanus]

12 minutes ago, 2 is 1 said:

I think NATO has rule that they cant take new member if that country is war at the time.

Which rule is that ?

I have searched online and cannot find anything .

The rules for joining NATO are :

 

 

-New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.

--New members must be making progress toward a market economy.

--Their military forces must be under firm civilian control.

--They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

--They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Putin may well be contemplating a lightning strike into Finland and/or Sweden, not necessarily to seize Helsinki or Stockholm or topple the governments, but just to hold enough of a piece of their territories to ignite a conflict and effectively disqualify them from NATO membership. The unwritten catch-22 NATO rule that trapped Ukraine in a legal limbo for 20 years could do the same for the two Scandinavian aspirants now. No country in a conflict situation can expect to be admitted as long as the conflict exists, because it automatically would bring the fighting to NATO under Article 5’s collective defense mandate.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3272099-will-nato-defy-putin-and-allow-finland-and-sweden-to-join/

Not a chance. What's he going to do it with? Finland and Sweden actually have highly trained armed forces. Putin doesn't have the resources to strike at them now. Given what we've seen of how poorly the Russian armed forces are performing in Ukraine, I don't think Putin wants them to be exposed to any more ridicule.

[tgw]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I read that they can't if borders are disputed. Probably both reasons apply.

border disputes can't be a reason unless they are very major disputes, because almost every country has border disputes.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Which rule is that ?

I have searched online and cannot find anything .

The rules for joining NATO are :

 

 

-New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.

--New members must be making progress toward a market economy.

--Their military forces must be under firm civilian control.

--They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

--They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.

6. States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.

 

and

 

17. As noted in Chapter 1, the resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.

 

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, tgw said:

border disputes can't be a reason unless they are very major disputes, because almost every country has border disputes.

I think an invasion or any military attack would qualify as a major dispute.