Latest developments and discussion of recent events in the Ukraine War

[orang37]

No way in hell they are trying to defend themselves here; they are trying to take advantage of Russia, which is currently at war, and are showing the Russians who the real dog is by flexing their power. Defense would be if the Russians made some underhanded attacks on the U.S., but I can't think of any recent events that would suggest that

[MicroB]

1 hour ago, orang37 said:

No way in hell they are trying to defend themselves here; they are trying to take advantage of Russia, which is currently at war, and are showing the Russians who the real dog is by flexing their power. Defense would be if the Russians made some underhanded attacks on the U.S., but I can't think of any recent events that would suggest that

 

Russia has made attacks using weapons of mass destruction on NATO territory in recent years, leading to deaths and injuries among civilians and uniformed services.

[MicroB]

13 hours ago, Mavideol said:

I would call it a warning and Putin is taking notice

Increasing U.S. presence near Russia: Defense or provocation?

 

Increasing U.S. presence near Russia: Defense or provocation? (msn.com)

 

Or a response to increases in Russian troop numbers along the borders with the Baltic States;

 

https://www.ft.com/content/1ec23623-31b3-446d-aa8b-b60684f44cc9

 

But its ebbed and flowed over the years, because a couple of months later, Russia dropped the numbers on the borders with NATO. Meaning they don't really think NATO is a threat to Russian sovereignty, and the Party Line is strictly for public consumption.

 

Justification for increasing defensive posture;

 

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-2-2024

 

Quote

Senior Russian officials continue to set conditions to justify possible future aggression against the Baltic states. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko gave an interview to Russian state-sponsored media outlet Baltnews that was published on September 30 that portrays Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia as enemies of Russia that have chosen "confrontation" over peace and are supporters of Nazis and neo-Nazism.[67] Grushko claimed that the Baltic states gave up their sovereignty to bolster NATO even though NATO would use these states as the main defensive barrier in a future confrontation with Russia. Kremlin officials have previously used similar accusations of supporting Nazism to justify the invasion of Ukraine, and Grushko's narrative is also likely aimed at scaring Baltic states from supporting policies that are contrary to Russia's interests in Europe.

 

 

[rabas]

Another  unstoppable, impenetrable, indestructible Putin 'super' weapon bites the dust.

 

Russia's latest S-70 Okhotnik heavy super-drone went awry causing it to fly straight to Ukraine territory forcing Russia to shoot it down albeit a bit late. Analysis of the captured weapon shows it be another nothing burger. 

 

No one knows how the war will end but Putin has surely lost all hope of weapon sales with many countries now rejecting his systems. What you get when you keep locking up your top scientists.

 

[LINK]  Contrary to Russian propaganda, the drone does not feature advertised stealth polymers or advanced artificial intelligence systems. The use of the Su-57 manned fighter as a command relay for the drone was seen as inefficient, highlighting limitations of Russian networking capabilities. The S-70 lacks robust stealth technologies and does not feature network-centric systems comparable to NATO’s Link-16, instead relying on a basic radio link for guidance.

Edited 21 hours ago by rabas

[Gweiloman]

6 hours ago, MicroB said:

 

Russia has made attacks using weapons of mass destruction on NATO territory in recent years, leading to deaths and injuries among civilians and uniformed services.

Is that right? Can you give some examples please? Why hasn’t Article 5 been triggered?

[Mavideol]

by it's own people 555

Furious, Vladimir Putin loses 13 million euros stealth drone after huge blunder

 

Furious, Vladimir Putin loses 13 million euros stealth drone after huge blunder (msn.com)

[Mavideol]

some of his "friends" turning on him

Putin betrayed, he is going to help Ukraine

 

Putin betrayed, he is going to help Ukraine (msn.com)

[Mavideol]

and the puppet has spoken 

Medvedev’s stance: Russia needs to crackdown on Ukraine supporters

 

Medvedev’s stance: Russia needs to crackdown on Ukraine supporters (msn.com)

[Mavideol]

The Russian economy can’t sustain Putin’s war on Ukraine much longer, expert says

https://au.yahoo.com/finance/news/russian-economy-t-sustain-putin-210536990.html

[Mavideol]

wonder why they come out with shtttttt like that after the fact, they had plenty of occasions to help but the turned a blind eye, damn politics and damn politicians

 

Ex-NATO chief says allies should have given Ukraine weapons earlier

https://au.yahoo.com/news/ex-nato-chief-says-allies-150630518.html

 

[Mavideol]

R I P man, you fought for a good cause

Ukraine-Russia war latest: Russian activist killed fighting for Ukraine as Kyiv receives first Dutch F-16s

https://au.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-russia-war-live-explosions-032353345.html

 

[Bkk Brian]

Yep, we've seen the uptick from all the horrific vids of the executions lately. Their new terror policy

 

Steep rise in Russian executions of Ukrainian prisoners of war

Executions of Ukrainian prisoners of war by Vladimir Putin’s forces have surged this year, with a top Kyiv official warning it could indicate a shift in Russian policy.
Some 80 per cent of the 93 prisoner executions recorded since the start of the war took place this year, Yuriy Belousov, the head of the prosecutor-general’s office, revealed on local TV. Gruesome videos and photos that appear to show the killings are often circulated by war bloggers and Telegram accounts, becoming vital evidence for Ukraine’s investigations.

https://archive.ph/2SOx9

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/06/steep-rise-in-russian-executions-of-ukrainian-prisoners/

[orang37]

12 hours ago, MicroB said:

 

Russia has made attacks using weapons of mass destruction on NATO territory in recent years, leading to deaths and injuries among civilians and uniformed services.

And what exactly are those territories, like which country did they attack?

[Bkk Brian]

13 hours ago, orang37 said:

And what exactly are those territories, like which country did they attack?

Chemical weapons - Novichok, used in the UK Salisbury on an assassination attempt

[orang37]

That happened in 2018, can you give a more recent event?

[ballpoint]

Two Ukrainian missiles - likely either Neptunes or Storm Shadows, have hit a Russian oil depot in Feodosia, Crimea, which is now burning brightly, despite a Pantsir SAM battery being located there to defend against such an attack.

 

 

[MicroB]

11 hours ago, orang37 said:

That happened in 2018, can you give a more recent event?

 

 

2018 is fairly recent. The official enquiry  into the death of Dawn Sturgess has just started. Russia had the same Head of State then as now. A police officer and another British civilian were also injured by the nerve agent.

 

In 2006, the Russian Federation carried out a Polonium-210 attqck against properties in London, in order to assasinate a defector.

 

We now know Russia had deployed Novichok to try and kill Emilian Gebrev in Bulgaria. Bulgaria has been a member of NATO since 2004.

 

The resukting contamination of sites, and explosure, displays either complete incompetance by the GRU, or cynical disregard.

 

Article V isn't automatically invoked when a NATO member is attacked. It has to be invoked by the member state. Prime Minister May chose not to invoke it. The incidents demonstrate that Russia, headed by Putin, is a country that is hostile and threatening to NATO.

 

Russia basically justified its invasion of Ukraine from events during WW2, accusing Ukrainians of being Nazis, ie member of, or sympathetic to, a German political party dissolved in May 1945.

 

[MicroB]

19 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

Is that right? Can you give some examples please? Why hasn’t Article 5 been triggered?

 

It was a decision taken by the affected government. Perhaps you should read the NATO Treaty.

 

 

Quote

 

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

 

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

 

 

The Treaty is willfully vague, for good reason. Article 5 only commits members to a response.

 

This is largely because of the US Constitution. The power to wage war should, according to the Constitution, belong exclusively to Congress. And this also applies to other NATO members. In 2001, the US invoked Article 5. Spain was unable to send troops to Afghanistan, and Parliamentary Approval could not be obtained.

 

If the United Kingdom had decided to invoke Article 5 in 2018, it is not necessarily the case that WW3 would have ensued. The Collective Action that could have been taken could have included sanctions. The UK would have sounded out allies, included Secretary  Tilleson, before the statement to the Commons. What is striking is that it took the US 5 months to decide to impose sanctions on certain Russian banks and sanctions, triggered by the CBW Act.  Even so, the Trump government never actually enforced those sanctions.

 

Hindsight maybe, but a stronger response 6 years ago might have averted the events of today. Instead, a US President chose to believe the Russian government, rather than his own intelligence services, and the evidence provided by the US' closest ally. In the end, he was forced to impose sanctions because of the CBW Act, because the US could not demonstrate that Russia had ceased in the use of banned chemical weapons. In conversations with the Russian government at the time, the US President chose to discuss offering US aid to fight Siberian wildfires instead.