Here we go again-Ukraine once again

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Just keep your russian fighter models away from it ..

No need, the entire collection theme is Post WWII British

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

Entire Russian spy network dismantled in Poland

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64975200

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

So, very different than the illustration they showed on US TV and that I referred to earlier. The plane passed the drone not underneath, but above.


The manouver I rate as an act of war, not different than if they had fired an missile, because the intention in both cases is the same: destruction of the drone.

[Exocet25fr]

Bakhmut situation map (15 March)

https://static16.tgcnt.ru/posts/_0/6...aba583c19a.jpg

[Skybird]

Its being reported that Poland will deliver 4 Fulcrums in the next days.

[Skybird]

Correction, Poland will deliver 12 Mig-29, but 4 of these already in the coming days .

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[Skybird]

After Poland, Slovakia also wants to send MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine. This was decided by his government, Prime Minister Eduard Heger announced. He thus confirmed an announcement made by Defense Minister Jaroslav Nad last week.

The fleet of a total of eleven Soviet-designed aircraft had been decommissioned last summer. Most of the aircraft are not in an operational condition. In addition to the operational jets, the others are to be handed over to Ukraine for the supply of spare parts.

(DW)

Its not clear whether formally the Poles would need Germany'S agreement to deliver their Migs, since they got Mig-29ers from Germany. If Berlin says No, I hope Poland goes ahead without agreement. This delivery, if it takes place finally, could indicate the brekaing of the last taboo, a taboo that is pretty pointless by now anyway. I earlier said I would not expect Western fighters in Ukraine before near the end of the year, and Q4 or early next year might be still a realistic guess of when the first Falcons (most likely this type) will arrive.

[Skybird]

Neue Zürcher Zeitung:

-----------------------------------

In an interview, former NATO supreme commander James Stavridis is critical of the reluctant Western arms deliveries to Ukraine. He considers the risk of a Russian nuclear strike to be low. Rather, Putin could find himself forced to negotiate as early as this year.

The confrontation between a Russian fighter jet and an American drone has caused nervousness this week. How concerned are you that incidents of this nature will one day lead to the expansion of the Ukraine war?

We cannot underestimate this. World War I began with the supposedly incidental assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne. Four years later, the Habsburg Empire had disappeared, as had the Ottoman Empire and the Tsarist Empire. Fortunately, today we have much better communications and intelligence, there are forums for discussion such as the UN, in short, many advantages that our ancestors could not take advantage of. Still, there is concern that a single incident can start a conflagration.

There is also the fact that those pilots over the Black Sea or the drone operators controlling the device from afar are not mature statesmen, but often young, hot-headed people who - on both sides - want to stand up for their country. We should go back to the security rules we had in the Cold War: The "Incidents at Sea" agreement at the time set minimum distances between Soviet and American jets, or forbade us on warships to fake an attack, such as by opening torpedo bays.

U.S. military reconnaissance with drones is an important support for Ukraine. But when it comes to supplying weapons, the picture looks mixed: Ukraine receives chunks of just enough to keep it from going under. What do you think of this approach?

Continuing such a phased approach makes no sense. We have been too slow and too hesitant. The best example is battle tanks: we have finally decided to make appropriate deliveries, but now it will take months before they will be in position for an offensive. Next are combat aircraft; again, governments say, "We're uncomfortable delivering such weapons - what happens if the Ukrainians fly them into Russian airspace?"

You see it differently?

This problem is easily solvable. We just need to tell the Ukrainians that the first time they send a plane into Russian airspace, all Western aid stops. End of story. The Ukrainians do not have the slightest leeway. So my opinion is: we should supply fighter jets - Polish MiG-29s, American F-16s, maybe A-10 aircraft to fight ground targets. We will get to that point. We used to say no to Stingers anti-aircraft missiles, later to Himars missile launchers, then to tanks, and now to fighter jets. We will get to yes, but the sooner, the better Ukraine's situation will be once it comes to negotiations.

The counter-argument is that the delivery of fighter jets will lead to escalation.

The U.S. has always been very cautious, taking a gradual approach, taking into account the risk of escalation - and has achieved nothing by doing so. Putin is throwing everything he has into this war. He is playing with all his might. Therefore, it is time for us to go full bore as well. With one big exception: no "boots on the ground" [no deployment of Western soldiers] and no NATO aircraft in Ukrainian airspace. Let's let the Ukrainians do it! Let's give them the means to do it.

How great is the danger that Putin will one day respond by using tactical nuclear bombs?

Of course, this is on everyone's mind. I don't think Putin will do that - for two reasons. One is military: it doesn't do him much good. If he were to use a nuke on any corner of the 800-kilometer front, the effect would be very limited. The Ukrainians are nowhere concentrated enough for him to achieve victory in one fell swoop . . .

. . . but he could theoretically deploy dozens of them.

True, but that brings us to the second reason: If Putin did that, global public opinion would immediately turn against him. India, Pakistan, South Africa, Nigeria, Brazil, the countries of the "global South," have so far stayed on the sidelines. Putin knows that these countries will not support a regime that uses dozens of nuclear bombs. I don't think Putin is crazy. China has also told him clearly that no nuclear war should be waged. President Xi is very cleverly going out of his way to try to dissuade Putin from making such a decision. I think the probability of nuclear weapons use is less than 5 percent. It is not comfortable, but it is very unlikely.

And what if Putin does turn a deaf ear to all the warnings?

In such a scenario, NATO would immediately declare a no-fly zone over Ukraine and deploy troops, I think. If I were still NATO commander-in-chief, I would already be drawing up such plans. Because at such a point, there would be nothing left to lose and we would have to stop Putin. The world would then make clear: Enough, Putin!

Regardless of such a horror scenario, when will the moment be reached militarily when the two sides begin negotiations?

One can imagine the situation as if two clocks were ticking: on the one hand, that of Putin, who is "burning up" troops and equipment. He may be able to keep this up for another year or two, but that clock is ticking pretty fast. Selenski's clock ticks differently. It depends on how long the West provides military equipment and finances. At some point, the two clocks will chime at the same time; that is the moment when you can possibly convince the warring parties to sit down at the negotiating table and come to a cease-fire. I would say that is six to nine months away.

Not years?

I don't think so. Putin doesn't have that kind of staying power anymore because of all the casualties. Russia has already lost 200,000 soldiers to death or injury, 800,000 men have fled abroad. He will come under pressure to agree to a deal. What it will look like, we don't know. But our job in the West is to make sure that Selenski has the means to get into the best possible negotiating position.

Does that mean that the Ukrainians absolutely must carry out a successful counteroffensive beforehand?

Yes, for example, by advancing directly through the Russian-occupied land corridor in the south, cutting it and destroying Russian logistics. Crimea would then be difficult for the Russians to defend. In this situation, Selensky could say, let's talk. And it could be the moment when Putin sees the need for it. I don't think that's years away - simply because neither side has the resources to go on for years.

And if the counteroffensive fails - has Ukraine missed its last chance?

I wouldn't say so. Ukraine will have some good assets when the Leopard tanks arrive in the spring, the British Challengers and not much later the American Abrams. In my opinion, the U.S. will add to this by supplying Atacms missiles with a range of 160 kilometers, plus cruise missiles that the Ukrainians can use to sink Black Sea Fleet ships. But if their offensive through the land corridor fails, which is possible, they will regroup and, as we Americans say, get another bite at the apple.

As NATO supreme commander, you had frequent contact with Russian officers. Against the background of this war, how do you judge their quality today?

I was shocked by the incompetence of the generals who designed this miserable attack plan. It suffered, first, from the fact that it fragmented the Russian forces, on six to eight different axes of attack. Second, the terrible reconnaissance work. The Russians obviously thought they would be greeted with vodka. Instead, they were welcomed with Molotov cocktails. Third, the breathtakingly incompetent logistics of the Russians. Compared to what modern armies do in this area, the Russians performed shockingly poorly. Ultimately, this is because Putin did the worst thing a leader can do: He isolated himself - from competent people, from reality - and acted on false information.

How likely do you think it is that Putin will still manage to achieve some kind of victory - some result that will make him stronger than before the war?

I rule that out. The world has watched Russia's troops struggle so desperately. Even in Brazil, Nigeria or Pakistan, you could tell what was propaganda and what was reality. Russia has lost any chance of being perceived as a capable military power. It is now forced to tie its future to China. But I don't think President Xi will announce big military aid next week when he visits Moscow. He is too smart for that.
---------------------------------

[Jimbuna]

Ukraine will remember who backed us - foreign minister

Countries that "mistreated Ukraine" will be held to account after the war ends, Ukraine's Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has warned.

In a BBC interview he said the choice every nation made following Russia's full-scale invasion will be "taken into account in building future relations".

He also warned delays of Western weapon deliveries would cost Ukrainian lives.

"If one delivery is postponed for one day, it means that someone is going to die on the frontline," he said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64976079

I can understand the position they are in but does this type of rhetoric help their cause?

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

USA sent new reconnaissance drone to Black Sea

The United States sent an RQ-4 Global Hawk drone to the Black Sea.

The drone took off from the Sigonella Air Base near the Italian city of Catania. For some time it was in the airspace of Romania, and now it is flying over the Black Sea.

As of 1:00 p.m., 14,800 users are following the movement of the American RQ-4 Global Hawk drone on the Flightradar24 website.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I can understand the position they are in but does this type of rhetoric help their cause?

They have started with such rhetorics just recently, and not earlier. A sign how tensed their situation has turned out to become, I assume.