I will give you an answer:

One of them is more eager to shoot at the house(civilians)than on the other army and the other army is more eager to shot at the other army than on the house(civilians)

Markus

:up:

Astvitaliy1982
 

It is interesting to know the opinion of the other forum participants

When I hear shooting I'm getting my family out of there to someplace relatively safe. Hopefully long before the battle reaches my lawn. I understand that is not always possible, but if the alternative is standing in the middle of a two-way range ...

If I had no family, I would pick up my gun and figure out which window to shoot from.

The 2014 American Coup in Ukraine

Tales of the American Empire - August 20, 2020

https://youtu.be/nW7lNABfDVk

Astvitaliy 1982
 

Yesterday in Donetsk, for Nina Mitrofanovna Vorobyeva, a parade was held for one veteran.

- We remember and are proud of your example of nobility, fortitude, love for the Motherland. The courage you showed during the war years is a worthy example for all of us, heirs of the Great Victory.

86 cadets marched in front of the veteran's house. And then they sang the song "Victory Day". Nina Mitrofanovna sang along with the guys, indeed, with tears in her eyes.

- The postponement of the Victory Parade due to hostilities is not a reason to leave our veterans without a holiday. Our cadets are always happy to participate in Parades for one veteran. We, as their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, will always remember at what cost the Victory was given to them, - said Lieutenant Colonel Yury Shpakov, head of the DonVOKU service.

- Thank you very much for not forgetting about the old people. The soldiers are just great! I wish all of us our Victory! - said the heroine Nina Vorobyova.

https://i.postimg.cc/KYTJhd3Y/UZic-H...y9u-Bf-USC.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/8z6h7LpK/Z6b-Gn...n-Lw-T-w-T.jpg


https://i.postimg.cc/851WX3h9/Xn-T7u...-ivt-Zif-N.jpg

French journalist in Donbass complains about French media reporting
'did you say "mass graves" in your report?'

https://youtu.be/LkbUS2vKCI0


"Donbass: 8 years of war" - Documentary by French journalist Anne Laure Bonnel (2016)

https://youtu.be/bN68OfFKaWs

The only region where Russians form a majority of 53% (in 2002 or so), is Crimea. Luhansk and Donbass were before 2014 at just one third and lower. Source: last official census in Ukraine done in 2001 or 2002.

Its good tradition that a people who gets betrayed by a government it just elected, chases that government away. Yanokovich was elected on his promises to bring Ukraine closer to the EU, which was what a large nationwide majority wanted, in the West and Centre more so than in the East. When he was elected, he suddenly let fall the mask and plotted a strict pro-Russia course. No wonder then that the people reacted angry and drove him out.

Fabricated regional majorities created by importing Russian migrants and deporting Ukrainian local residents, are no acceptable argument to make claims for ethnic regional dominance. And that is what Russia did in all these regions, driving unwilling Ukrainians out and importing migrants from Russia, next handing out Russian passports. Thats not creating legitimate arguments, but is called a plot, a conspiracy, a crime.

A strawman.

Russia, becoming more and more irrelevant due to its economic backwardedness, wants to regain global relevance and keep it once the Europeans completed its announced decarbonization.
Thus Russia wants to steal Ukraine's farmland and grain production, so to establish a Russian global monopole on grain, namely wheat, and by that have a strong leg in the third world. It also wants the huge gas fields discovered in Eastern Ukraine just a decade ago. It wants these for itself - and to kill the Ukrainian competition on the global market.

^ @Skybird well put. Wait, did i say this :hmmm::D

Since you wanted to hear from other subsim members –
Both side's bullets can kill you, and what is euphemistically called "friendly fire" can of course kill you as well as the enemy.
I would of course have left the house if possible, if not this will become ugly.

But this was of course a rhetorical question by you.

If another country attacks my country for an obvious conquest of land, with pretexts, propaganda and lies, ridiculing my ancestors who fought ecactly this behaviour some 80 years ago, i grab a gun and look for the enemy to shoot at.

By the way showing repect to war veterans and honour them is a good thing.
Instrumentalizing war veterans for an unrightful war is disgusting.
In case of Russia, you have forgotten all that was important to the victors of World War II.

What we see in Russia today is a fascist who instrumentalises anti-fascism for his power-interests. Doing so he dances on the graves of 24 million Russians and 8 million Urkainians who were killed in WW2.

Iskander missiles have been stationed in Crimea, says media reports. These are nuclear-capable. Russia already has based Iskanders in Kaliningrad, and a new generation of crise missiles that can cover all Europe and the Mediterranean, from Iceland down to the Northafrican coast, which is a clear breach of international weapon control treaties.

Gunnar Heinsohn sorting Russia's nuclear doctrine.

Those who want to understand Putin's statements on the use of nuclear weapons must bear in mind that Russia has been following a new nuclear doctrine since 2000. It allows Moscow to arbitrarily define a case of attack. Nuclear defense and nuclear pre-emptive strike merge.

We do not use nuclear weapons first, but we answer a nuclear attack on our territory with a devastating nuclear counterattack. "Our" territory also includes territories whose inhabitants we have subjugated and annexed against their will. Even pact partners with formal autonomy, which we control with troops stationed there, are "our" territory. A conventional attack on all this, on the other hand, we too answer only with conventional means. This nuclear doctrine of Soviet Russia corresponds to the Western renunciation of nuclear first strike at the time. Both sides, however, can undermine this doctrine by developing their potential for a first strike so effectively that it destroys all nuclear weapons on the other side and thus denies it a counterstrike.

To prevent such circumvention of the first-strike waiver, both sides develop second-strike nuclear potentials that remain intact even in the event of an all-out attack. Since even aircraft carriers-regardless of their mobility-remain sinkable, they rely on nuclear-armed submarines for preventing nuclear first strikes.

Those who, after the general acceptance of this doctrine, still want to operate with nuclear first strikes, but do not want a global nuclear war, must make this public in good time, so that enemy obliteration strikes by nuclear submarines will not occur. To do this, the nuclear first strike against a conventional adversary must first be defined. Should the nuclear strike hit him only when his conventional forces penetrate "our" territory? In other words, should only a low-kiloton nuclear battlefield weapon be used? Or is the first strike intended to be pre-emptive, i.e., to strike an adversary who is not attacking "us" conventionally at all, but who is perceived as a threat? Does the possible attack on "us" mean an intrusion into "our" territory or is already aiding and abetting the obstruction of "our" - wherever operating - military an attack?
A new doctrine

Indisputably, in April 2000 - that is, at the beginning of Putin's first presidency - Russia promulgated a new doctrine (Decree No. 706) of nuclear first strikes against "large-scale attacks using conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation." (Nikolai Sokov, "Russia's 2000 Military Doctrine," Nuclear Threat Initiative, undated, https://www.nti.org/analysis/ articles/russias-2000-military-doctrine/).

In October 2018, Putin explains that "our concept is a retaliatory offensive strike. [...] We are ready to use nuclear weapons [...] only if we are convinced that someone, a potential aggressor, is attacking Russia, our territory."

This conventional attack on "our" country, however, should be answered only with a nuclear strike against military forces that have not yet invaded Russia. Moscow alone, therefore, decides whether this potential aggressor actually wants to cross its border. Nuclear defense and nuclear pre-emptive strike thus merge. This was already emphasized in 2009 by Nikolai Patrushev, who as secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation is supposed to represent Putin in the event of serious illness: "In situations critical for national security, a preventive nuclear strike against an aggressor is not out of the question."

Moscow will be concerned, however, that even after a tactical nuclear strike or even just a show explosion, NATO will not run away in panic, but can purely conventionally destroy in a few days everything Moscow has in use on foreign territory for war and genocide. NATO keeps this escalation level in reserve with deliberation. Russia itself would not be touched and Putin would then have no doctrine below a global nuclear war. However, he will not get away with this at home and will therefore also meet resistance with the level below.


https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf


https://www.russiamatters.org/analys...uclear-toolbox

Russian ambassador to Poland covered in paint by protesters at war memorial event.
Seems he had asked for support organizing the event of celebrating, but Poland would not have let him steal this event for russian war propaganda


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqlf4FmNqYM

It can still come-I doubt it though-The war declaration against Ukraine and the mass mobilization in Russia.

Markus

I will add this to your story

From liveuamap

23 minutes ago - 45°16′N 32°4′E
The Russian Defense Ministry announces the deployment of battleships carrying Kalibr missiles in the Black Sea

Markus