Here we go again-Ukraine once again pt2

[Skybird]

One thing is clear. If people in the West shy away from anything that could weaken the Russians so much that they indeed lose the war and then might do something even worse than what they already have done to Ukraine, then the logical conclusion is that the West will never do anything that would enable the Ukrainians to win. This means that the West already has resigned and accepted the Russians will earn victory in the end, and the West then is even helping to secure it for Russia. By refusing to do what it takes to prevent that.

The Russians are already doing what even a small nuclear bomb can do, even worse. They have razed entire cities to the ground. They have only taken more time than a nuclear bomb would have needed, with at least equal destruction. Their logic is parallel to that of the West: by delaying the war intensity to a lower level than that of nuclear explosions, as they do, they do not provoke a decisive Western response, and even more: they intimidate the West with the threat that they could still do it at a later date. Thus they ensure that the West will not really stand in the way of their victory, but will be content merely to pretend to do so. The West maintains the appearance of being on the morally right side - while in reality it stands on the sidelines and only drives up the price of the Russian victory. Nonetheless, both the West and Russia have long since agreed to sell Ukraine to Russia.

If it is like I just said, it means that they are really only haggling over the price now. But the deal is in principle already agreed on.

I hope I get proven wrong by events. But I refuse to make consequences artificially complicated when in fact they are obvious and simple. I stick to Occam's razor. I judge the Western acting by the consequences it causes - not on words and claims and holy promises. Thats why especially the German acting does not impress me. Babble Olaf plays with marked cards. So does Macronman.

[Skybird]

And the socialist in Rome disguised as the Pope has once again pulled a coup out of the toilet with his cynical proposals.

[mapuc]

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Is Europe doing enough to help against Russia?

When the widow of the Russian dissident Alexei Navalny addressed the European Parliament recently, she said something striking. "If you really want to defeat Putin, you have to become an innovator," Yulia Navalnaya told MEPs. "And you have to stop being boring."

Being innovative and interesting may be traits not always associated with some European politicians.

But they are having to think differently, not just about how better to support Ukraine but also to increase pressure on Russia.

The shadow of a potential Donald Trump presidency hangs over the continent, raising doubts about America's long-term backing for Ukraine.

A $60bn (£47bn) package of US military support for Ukraine is held up in the House of Representatives. And on the battlefield, Russian forces are beginning to make gains against their less well armed opponents.

Two years on from Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, European capitals have largely maintained their political backing for Kyiv.

In January the European Union agreed in January a €50bn package ($55bn; £43bn) of grants and loans to fund Ukraine's government and public services.

But the EU failed to meet its target of sending one million shells to Ukraine by the beginning of this month.

EU diplomats are still haggling over plans for a new €5bn top-up to the European Peace Facility to buy more weapons for Kyiv. And Nato says that this year about 12 European members may still not meet the alliance's target of spending 2% of national output on defence.

With the diplomatic and military balance is shifting, Europe is having to think creatively about how to support Ukraine and deter future Russian aggression.

There are existing stocks of ammunition and weapons Europe could give to Ukraine.

UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron told the House of Lords this week that instead of decommissioning weapons systems at great expense once they technically pass their expiry dates, allies should give them to Ukraine.

He also said countries in Eastern Europe with "legacy Soviet ammunition" suitable for Ukrainian weapons should release those stocks immediately.

But, as throughout this war, European leaders are still agonising over what weapons to give Kyiv.

The latest row is over Germany's Taurus missiles. These have range of about 300 miles (500km), more than the UK-supplied Storm Shadows being used by Ukraine.

Many allies believe Taurus would give Ukraine the chance to strike deep behind Russian lines.

But German Chancellor Olaf Scholz fears they could also be used against Russian cities and is resisting, fearing escalation.

There are also plans to get Ukraine desperately needed artillery shells. The Czech government agreed a $1.5bn (£1.2bn) deal this week for a consortium of 18 Nato and EU countries to buy 800,000 rounds - both 155mm and 122mm calibre - from outside the EU.

This is a significant shift for more protectionist-minded EU members, especially France. But it will not meet Ukraine's demand for the 2.5m shells it says it needs this year.

Policymakers are also are mulling new ways to increase spending on defence, including a proposal for the European Investment Bank to end its ban on funding defence projects.

There are proposals for European countries to co-operate more on defence procurement, buying arms jointly from manufacturers to drive down costs. Governments are also looking to give defence firms longer-term contracts to boost production in a highly risk adverse industry.

But little will happen overnight. One British minister told me: "One forgets that Dunkirk to D-Day was four years. It takes a long time to generate the mass to go from defence to offence."

Estonia wants all Nato countries to commit - as it has - to give Ukraine at least 0.25% of their output in military support.

This would raise about 120bn euros per year. Although some allies are sympathetic, this idea has yet to win widespread backing.

Some Europe policymakers are also drawing up plans for a form of updated "lend-lease" arrangement to loan weapons to Ukraine, just as the allies did for the USSR during WWII. But these ideas are at an early stage.

Much thought is going into how best to exploit the roughly 300bn euros of frozen Russian assets held in Western financial institutions.

Giving the money outright to Ukraine might be illegal and put European assets at risk in other jurisdictions.

But the EU is looking at a plan to use the profits to fund military support for Ukraine. And the UK is looking at a separate proposal to use the assets as collateral for fast-track reparations for Ukraine.

The aim is not just to raise cash for Ukraine but also level a strategic blow against Russia, hitting its economy hard.

So some European policymakers are thinking laterally. But tensions remain.

Many Eastern European countries are committing more military resource than their Western counterparts. Loose-lipped German officers are upsetting allies by revealing military secrets.

And President Emmanuel Macron of France has ruffled feathers by suggesting the West should consider putting military boots on the ground in Ukraine, thought by many analysts to be an unnecessary row over an implausible option.

Perhaps the biggest disagreement within European capitals is about the long-term challenge from Russia.

A recent poll from the European Council on Foreign Relations think tank suggested while most Europeans support Ukraine, only 1 in 10 think it can win an outright victory.

Some analysts say this is because European governments have not understood the broader challenge from Russia.

"There is no evidence that the highest political level has understood the scale of the threat or tried to explain it to the public," says Keir Giles, senior consulting fellow at Chatham House, a British think tank.

"If action comes too late to avoid disaster, it will have been because of criminal complacency."

So will Europe rise to the challenge? Maybe there was one small hint of change this week.

France has long been criticised for not giving Ukraine enough military support. But President Macron - who once said Russia should not be humiliated - was in bullish form.

"We are surely approaching a moment for Europe in which it will be necessary not to be cowards," he said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68514995

[Reece]

and so it goes, still all talk and no action!!

[Jimbuna]

No real surprises there then.

Probably a source of entertainment for Putin.

[Reece]

yeh!! at least someones happy!

[Jimbuna]

US prepared for Russia's nuclear strike on Ukraine in late 2022

In late 2022, the United States began preparing for the possibility that Russia might launch a nuclear strike against Ukraine. The US administration's fears were based on some intelligence information, states CNN.

"We had to plan so that we were in the best possible position in case this no‑longer unthinkable event actually took place," a senior US administration official told CNN.

According to another US official, from late summer to fall 2022, the US National Security Council convened a series of meetings to develop contingency plans, including for either very clear signs of a nuclear strike in the making or an actual strike.

"How we would respond, how we would try to preempt it, or deter it," the official explained.
The United States believed that the loss of Kherson could provoke Russia to a nuclear strike on Ukraine, as Moscow could see it as an "existential threat," the unnamed American official said. A nuclear strike could also be seen by the Kremlin as a tool to deter Ukraine from further liberation of territories or a potential attack on Russia.

At the time, Russian propaganda was actively spreading a fake news story about a "dirty bomb" that Ukraine was allegedly planning to detonate in order to blame Russia. Later, Western intelligence learned that Russian officials were discussing a nuclear strike. However, the United States did not record any preparations by Russian nuclear forces for a strike, although Washington was not sure that it would be able to learn about the movement of tactical weapons in Russia, as they are difficult to track.

Against the backdrop of the threat, the United States worked with its allies to develop response plans and used them to send Russia a warning of the consequences. Washington also tried to enlist the support of India and China.

Today, according to CNN, US officials believe that the risk of a nuclear strike has decreased.

Last year, speaking at the United Nations, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for the disarmament of Russia, as terrorists have no right to possess nuclear weapons.

In addition, Russia has moved its nuclear weapons to Belarus. However, self-proclaimed President Alexander Lukashenko will not be able to use them on his own.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...66bacdba&ei=40

[mapuc]

^ I think they had planned on using nukes, despite what others have said in this thread.

Yes they have used this threat many times. But as it said in the article Ukraine had great momentum and Russia was "on the run"

As another pointed out-They have destroyed so much among civilian buildings that it would look like nukes had been used.

Nukes will be used by the Russian if they lose Crimea and/or Donetsk.

Markus

[mapuc]

How can this be proved ?



Markus

[Skybird]

I fear the author is right.

There are increasing signs that Putin will soon win the war.

https://www-focus-de.translate.goog/...en&_x_tr_hl=de

It is obvious that more and more Western lead politicians have given the war away. Even before the Orange blockade, Biden and the Democrats did not do all they could, never did.

This war would have needed grim determination, no matter the cost, like Kennedy showed during Kuba. Brutal power, detemrination and the willingness to show it, to leave no doubt on that one is willing to go all the way - thats the only way how you can negotiate with Sovjets/Russians and hope to get away with it. Force. Superior power. Threat.

Muscle. Not smart wording.

Instead: vain roosters parading around the yard with constant cock-a-doodle-doo, believing that this will keep the wolves away. Ridiculous.

Our defence production by now, by given orders, should produce Russian military production into the ground. Instead, there is not even a consensus to do so in the future. Petty disputes over "Petitessen" and narcissistic sensitivities. Pompous talk-slinging.

NATO can no longer be relied on. And that doesn't mean the Trump issue. Article 5 never was anything more than options for individual national actors to chose anything between diplomatic notes and an armoured corps. There never was any mandatory obligation for anything included.

Ridiculous.

Ukraine is done. And its the West's fault. (Also Ukraine's, due to its inner corruption and internal conflicts in the leadership).

Ironically the Russians from beginning on have been the most predictable variable in all this mess.

The torso that will remain of Ukraine, is heavily wounded, abused, dependent, will see millions of citizens gone away, and uncertain longterm economic perspectives to surirve. All this will fall the Europeans on their feet.

And the Russians will come back to their unfinished business sooner or later. 5-10 years.

[Reece]

So sad Marc!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Reece

So sad Marc!

Sad - and outrageous.

Meanwhile Russia already now produces three times as many artillery shells for the Ukraine warzone than Europe and the US together. Thats hilarious.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/p...ine/index.html

And the Russian's use of new 1.5 ton glide bombs summons hell and desaster on Ukrainian dfeences and building targets like poowerplants. It seesm the Ukrianains have no defence against them. Their morale is taking a beating, too.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/e...irc_end_recirc

When i add all the many media snippets of comments, informations, news, reports and such together and stitch it all together, I get the picture of that something serious is breaking apart in the Ukrainian resistence currently, and on a deep-rooting, structural level. But that is my subjective perception, and generally across all the picture. I cannot point finger on this and that detail and say, "here, thats the cause". Its not so much just a visible crack in the wall, but a subtle, general vibration of the whole building. Sooner or later every ongoing attrition must lead to structural breaks, however.

The spring mud period coming maybe will slow Russia down, but at least until the "elections" in Russia they will press on. Ukraine may try to hide behind minefields, but different to Russia last summer Ukraine no longer has the artillery to take advantage of Russian units bogging down in these minefields.

[mapuc]

Yes it is indeed sad news.

It sadden me that Russia gets away with their terror against Ukraine

I don't think the West has spoken with a snakes tongue. The problem lay in the Parliament here in the West where some politician is more or less pro-Russian and will do almost anything to prevent their country from sending ammo to Ukraine

And then we have our voters. For the Politicians here it's more important to bow and follow the voters demands than helping a country in need.

When all this is said It wouldn't surprise me at all if NATO decide to send troops to Ukraine-Not combat troops though.

Markus

[mapuc]

Then we have these positive videos



Edit
And some negative video clips

End edit

Markus