Here we go again-Ukraine once again

[Jimbuna]

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by mapuc

[...] As one of you mentioned earlier-For each type of tanks they have to establish a logistic chain. [...]

This, and the tank crews have to learn the ropes of course. However as a german major rank mentioned, you can learn to drive a Leopard in an hour, reloading and targeting is easy and largely automated, and the most challenging task is to use it wisely together with other tanks and units, as a team.
The rest you mentioned is of course the best way at the time being

@Skybird re Poland yes i know. Most poles i know do not like the Pis "Law and Justice" (lmao) party, and for the latter it is all or nothing for elections this year. Populism and an aggressive neighbour like Russia certainly help them.. hell even i would like them to send those tanks if it helps Ukraine.

[Skybird]

I repeatedly heard and read and saw in films that the Russians use modified verisons of the T-72 which are superior to those used by the Ukrainians. These improvements are related to turret armour, added AT-11 Refleks-capability (how much I hate these damn little things, its a potential cannon-kill capability over 5000m), electornics and sights, it for exmapel no logne rhas an iF light, but thermals added like T-72 modernized in Western use.

Steel Beasts allow comparison to a certain degree, their mathematical models are very good, but of course are fed with non-secret, publicly available data, they also freqeuntly finetune their data for ammo and armour, where new real world data becomes available.

I thought these two videos might be interesting for some. You see comparisons between the modern T-72B3' gunner's sights and station, and that of one of the older Russian T-72.





Aiming and getting the shot out is faster in M1 and Challenger-2, and the fastest and easiest in Leopard-2 from A5 version on. Its small differences in ergonomy, simplifying the workign steps of the procedure, but these add up. And when two tanks meet in duelling each other directly, these may make the difference.


P.S. I say again. I HATE Refleks. It should be forbidden. And I also now the AT-11 is not called Refleks anymore, but to me these barrel launched mini-missiles are damn "Refleks" all along. Can really ruin any tanks day. Western tanks ma ybe able to shoot at 5000m, what usually they do not, but with range growing precision goes down. The Refleks has a longer travel time and needs to be led, but as long as LOS is given, it does not loose precision. Giving the T-72 and T-80 shooting these a decisive range advance over Wetsenr tanks - if they manage to find and identify targets at that high range. Its also expensive ammunition and thus not in high supply.

[August]

I admire these plucky people.

[Jimbuna]

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I know Ukraine is dreaming about getting some of our modern tanks we have-Leopard 2 Abrams 1A.

As one of you mentioned earlier-For each type of tanks they have to establish a logistic chain.

In the countries-friendly countries that is-which has border to Ukraine have hundreds of T72 and T80(I think it was).
Why not make a change-They get some of our newer tanks and they give Ukraine their T72 and T80. They are not at war and have time to build a logistic for these tanks.

For Ukraine you could say that:

1. They have crew who can manage these tanks
2. They already have a well oiled Logistic for these tanks.

Markus

Thats what already has been done, Markus. The Polish and I think the Czech or Slovaks (at leats one other European country) gave T-72s to Ukraine, and got and will get German Marders and Leopards-2. In German it is called "Ringtausch". The Poles gave them over 200 T-72!


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


Another bad day in Kyiv.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64315594

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

While the Russian spill out propaganda, so does the West in a bid to talk down the Russian advance at Soledar and Bachmut.

Soledar is taken by Wagner, or so they claim though the Russian attack ministry kind of disagrees to not look bad itself, and for the mafiosi at the helm of this gang of war criminals, Prigozhin, installing himself as owner of Soledar is a nice outlook for the time after the war - when he the can win big cash from the salt and bauxit mines there. It also gives him a seat closer to Putin's ear. Russian politics in the end always is about the self-enrichment of the "tsars" who are currently at the helm.

But it is about more, it is about the attempt to encircle Bachmut from the North as well, and slowly, the Russians seem to be able to tighten the sling around Bachmut. Slowly, and under high losses, but they seem to be able to digest these losses and advance nevertehless.

I disagree with Western media an politicians constantly trying to get home the message that Bachmut is strategically irrelevant. As an artillery base for Ukraine to shell Russian supply lines east of the city, it is not irrelevant at all. For the Russians, its a war goal now to get all of Donbaz. A strategic goal of theirs, no matter whether the West says that makes sense or not. That they think it makes sense is what counts here.

We should not fall neither for their nor our own propaganda.

Bachmut is also about war psychology, and trying to break the other side'S will while prevailign oneself. "My club is bigger than yours." Being driven out of Bachmut now after these very high lossses and long fighting would have an impact on Ukrainian morale, namely the participating units and troops, it is unreasonable not to assume it would have that. Humans have psyches.

[Skybird]

The never-mentioned truth, of which so many republicans who rage against American spending on Ukraine should be reminded. Because, dear Republican friend, these are not funds America is writing off. They are hard-core investments at a profit.
FOCUS:
-------------------------------------

The U.S. is winning the Ukraine war. U.S. aid to Ukraine is not altruistic.

The U.S. is supporting Ukraine like no other country on earth. But the help is not entirely selfless. For even Joe Biden has nothing to give away. The U.S. president is counting on "arming on credit." Germany, on the other hand, must hope that the war will soon end not far from its doorstep.

All failure is always organizational failure. So when the new Defense Minister Boris Pistorius now takes up his post, he should swiftly correct a bad decision made by his CDU predecessor Thomas de Maizière: The abolition of the Planning Staff.

This planning staff was the ministry's internal think tank. The team, which ultimately numbered around 30, reported directly to the minister and was the geostrategic brain of German defense policy. The abolition of this department in 2012 - for reasons that remain unclear to this day - was tantamount to a brain amputation.

Immediately, this planning staff, which was to be newly established, was to deal with the power shifts within the NATO states triggered by the Ukraine war and the Western reaction to it. It is highly politically incorrect, but all the more worthwhile for that, to deal in particular with the USA. For in the shadow of the war, a shift of power and wealth has taken place here that is more than painful for Germany:

Profiteer No. 1: The U.S. Armaments Industry

Since the beginning of the war, the U.S. has provided Ukraine with more than $50 billion in military, financial and humanitarian assistance. Much more than any other country.

But: across the centuries, former President Calvin Coolidge's phrase holds true: "After all, the chief business of the American people is business."

In May 2022, the Senate passed legislation authorizing the U.S. government to loan military equipment to Ukraine quickly and without red tape - the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022. So the roughly $23 billion in military assistance is not a giveaway.

It stipulates that "any loans or leases of defense equipment to the Government of Ukraine [...] [are] subject to return, reimbursement, and repayment."

"Arming on Credit" of Ukraine

"Arming on credit," for that is what it is, was invented during World War II when Winston Churchill found himself unable to manage the defense of Great Britain on his own. The government has now remembered the procedure of selling weapons against promissory bills.

Coincidence or not, the U.S. also has a material interest in keeping the government in Kiev solvent. In late September 2022, the Financial Times reported that the U.S. was urging EU countries to accelerate pledged financial assistance to Ukraine and to establish a "regular mechanism" for financial support. It is still open whether EU funds should and may also be used for military repayments to the US.

The fact is that the U.S. is strict on these matters. Great Britain stuttered off its installments from Lend-Lease debts until 2006, by which time the world war had been over for 61 years.

U.S. defense companies sought after by investors

Such programs - then as now - are used primarily by U.S. defense companies, without the domestic taxpayer being held accountable. The stock market quotations of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman reflect the euphoria of investors, especially since in the future replacement procurement will also have to be handled by American manufacturers.

The increase in all Western military budgets is also benefiting the Americans. Olaf Scholz has pledged an additional 100 billion.

An analysis by Foreign Policy magazine found that the United States nearly doubled the number of authorized arms sales to NATO allies in 2022 compared to 2021 - from $15.5 billion to $28 billion. This is how war becomes a business.

Profiteer No. 2: The US energy companies

By imposing economic sanctions - trade restrictions, asset freezes, exclusion from payment systems or a ban on oil exports - Russia has been isolated. This will irrevocably disrupt previous German-Russian trade for a very long time. The American energy companies are offering to help in this emergency.

They can hardly get to sleep for laughing: LNG imports from America increased by 260 percent in 2022 compared to the previous year. American liquefied natural gas is replacing Russian pipeline gas from Nord Stream 1 and Co.

American oil is also suddenly in demand: according to data provider OilX, some 500 American oil tankers have sailed to Europe since February 2022, helping to push U.S. crude oil exports to a record high last year. Between December 2021 and December 2022, U.S. export figures rose 52 percent.

Profiteer No. 3: The U.S. government

The U.S. administration has an interest in permanently weakening system rival Russia and essentially removing it from the game of great powers. It can do this safely for its own country and the lives of its own soldiers. This is another reason why Washington has no interest in a quick peace deal in Ukraine, as outlined by 99-year-old Henry Kissinger in Davos yesterday.

Joe Biden wants regime change in Moscow. He made that clear in a speech outside the Warsaw City Palace. His foreign minister has also made it clear that they want to take away Russia's ability to wage war.

The source of uncertainty in Europe also benefits the U.S. capital market in the medium term, which is perceived by investors as a safe haven. Capital outflows from Europe in the first months of the war were substantial. Yesterday after the close of the stock exchange, BASF reported a loss of billions of euros, mainly due to write-downs on its Russian business, which has since been terminated.

Germany has strategic interest that conflict be ended quickly

The Europeans, and Germany in particular, have an overriding strategic interest in ensuring that the conflict is ended as quickly as possible, or at least frozen, and does not under any circumstances spread in the direction of the major Western European cities. The more intense and intensive a war rages in Europe, the more pessimistic are the investment conditions, both in the real economy and on the capital markets of London, Paris and Frankfurt.

Conclusion: Russia as a trading partner is de facto exchanged for America as a trading partner. This also strengthens the Americans' negotiating position for talks on future free trade agreements and the China strategy.

If the planning staff at the Department of Defense still existed, it would write down the following paradox for the Secretary in the Executive Summary: Russia is at war with Ukraine - and America is winning.

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

[Skybird]

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:
-------------------------------
Cooking the frog

Behind the Western arms deliveries to Ukraine lies a realpolitik strategy that is little talked about in Germany. An important component is the vote in the alliance.

The question of whether arms deliveries to Ukraine could draw the West into the war has preoccupied politicians not only since battle tanks have been discussed. The U.S. president, in particular, has repeatedly indicated caution in this regard. In late May, when artillery was still the primary issue, Biden laid out his principles in an opinion piece for The New York Times.

As long as the United States or its allies were not under attack, he said, there would be no direct involvement in the conflict - "either by sending American troops to fight in Ukraine or by attacking Russian troops." In addition, he maintained, "We do not encourage or enable Ukraine to conduct strikes beyond its border."

These two stipulations continue to shape U.S. and, by extension, all Western military assistance to Kiev to this day. Because no Western soldiers are sent to Ukraine, Ukrainian personnel must be trained abroad on Western weapons, making the process more protracted. And because Biden wants to prevent Russia from being attacked with Western weapons, he has, for example, limited the range of the delivered HIMARS multiple rocket launcher to 80 kilometers, even though munitions with a range of up to 300 kilometers are available. This means less combat power for Ukraine. Apparently, there is mistrust in the Ukrainian leadership in Washington on this issue.

However, this alone cannot rule out Russian countermeasures. From the beginning of the war, the West has been aware that attacks on Western supplies are an option for Russia. If they were to take place on NATO territory, then the alliance would have to decide on the alliance case, i.e., consider entering the war. Ultimately, it is a question of how the Russian president calculates: Is the damage to him greater if he accepts Western arms deliveries or if he tries to disrupt them militarily?

This calculation can be influenced, and the Western strategy attempts to do so by two main means. The first concerns the combat power of the arms deliveries. It has been increased only incrementally, from man-portable guided missiles to howitzers and rocket launchers to the current debate about battle tanks. For Putin, the question arose each time anew whether the respective increase in Ukrainian striking power appeared so threatening to him that he would enter into a direct confrontation with the West because of it. American government officials once called this approach "boiling the frog" - referring to the story of a frog that immediately hops out of the pot when placed in boiling water, but not when the water is heated slowly.

The other remedy is Western unity. While arms deliveries were not always simultaneous, they were usually coordinated. This gave Putin less opportunity to target individual countries willing to go it alone, thereby dividing the Western alliance. That this is not a theoretical debate was evident early in the war. In March, Poland wanted to deliver fighter jets to Ukraine, but for reassurance via an American air base in Germany. This was publicly rejected by the U.S. leadership, whereupon Warsaw dropped the advance.The incident shed early light on a dilemma facing not only Poland. In essence, every European NATO member depends on Washington's approval of its course because Europe cannot defend itself against Russia. The obligation to provide assistance in the NATO treaty is unspecific; politically, dealing with a Russian attack would be a difficult matter in any member state.

That America would be willing to go to war against Russia to cover arms deliveries that it itself was not willing to make is not said. Coordinated action, such as that to be achieved through the Ramstein weapons conferences, will defuse the problem. Putin must reckon with the entire NATO opposing him should he, for example, have weapons depots and transports in Poland or Romania shelled.

This approach has been successful in that Russia has not yet extended the war beyond Ukraine. Nevertheless, no one in the West can reliably say whether Putin sees red lines on this issue and where they would run. Militarily, it seems less likely today than at the beginning of the war that he would dare attack NATO.

As is well known, the Russian military is under heavy pressure in Ukraine, and a new front further west might finally overwhelm its forces. Politically, the Kremlin ruler's balance of goods could look different: The closer Western arms deliveries bring him to defeat in Ukraine, the greater the risk of a loss of power in Russia for him.

In the public debate in Germany, these aspects hardly play a role. This is probably a consequence of the fact that large sections of politics and society no longer wanted to know anything about realpolitik after the Cold War. But they cannot be completely ignored, as the actions of the German government have repeatedly shown. The new defense minister will not be able to ignore them either.
-------------------------

[les green01]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The never-mentioned truth, of which so many republicans who rage against American spending on Ukraine should be reminded. Because, dear Republican friend, these are not funds America is writing off. They are hard-core investments at a profit.
FOCUS:
-------------------------------------

The U.S. is winning the Ukraine war. U.S. aid to Ukraine is not altruistic.

The U.S. is supporting Ukraine like no other country on earth. But the help is not entirely selfless. For even Joe Biden has nothing to give away. The U.S. president is counting on "arming on credit." Germany, on the other hand, must hope that the war will soon end not far from its doorstep.

All failure is always organizational failure. So when the new Defense Minister Boris Pistorius now takes up his post, he should swiftly correct a bad decision made by his CDU predecessor Thomas de Maizière: The abolition of the Planning Staff.

This planning staff was the ministry's internal think tank. The team, which ultimately numbered around 30, reported directly to the minister and was the geostrategic brain of German defense policy. The abolition of this department in 2012 - for reasons that remain unclear to this day - was tantamount to a brain amputation.

Immediately, this planning staff, which was to be newly established, was to deal with the power shifts within the NATO states triggered by the Ukraine war and the Western reaction to it. It is highly politically incorrect, but all the more worthwhile for that, to deal in particular with the USA. For in the shadow of the war, a shift of power and wealth has taken place here that is more than painful for Germany:

Profiteer No. 1: The U.S. Armaments Industry

Since the beginning of the war, the U.S. has provided Ukraine with more than $50 billion in military, financial and humanitarian assistance. Much more than any other country.

But: across the centuries, former President Calvin Coolidge's phrase holds true: "After all, the chief business of the American people is business."

In May 2022, the Senate passed legislation authorizing the U.S. government to loan military equipment to Ukraine quickly and without red tape - the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022. So the roughly $23 billion in military assistance is not a giveaway.

It stipulates that "any loans or leases of defense equipment to the Government of Ukraine [...] [are] subject to return, reimbursement, and repayment."

"Arming on Credit" of Ukraine

"Arming on credit," for that is what it is, was invented during World War II when Winston Churchill found himself unable to manage the defense of Great Britain on his own. The government has now remembered the procedure of selling weapons against promissory bills.

Coincidence or not, the U.S. also has a material interest in keeping the government in Kiev solvent. In late September 2022, the Financial Times reported that the U.S. was urging EU countries to accelerate pledged financial assistance to Ukraine and to establish a "regular mechanism" for financial support. It is still open whether EU funds should and may also be used for military repayments to the US.

The fact is that the U.S. is strict on these matters. Great Britain stuttered off its installments from Lend-Lease debts until 2006, by which time the world war had been over for 61 years.

U.S. defense companies sought after by investors

Such programs - then as now - are used primarily by U.S. defense companies, without the domestic taxpayer being held accountable. The stock market quotations of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman reflect the euphoria of investors, especially since in the future replacement procurement will also have to be handled by American manufacturers.

The increase in all Western military budgets is also benefiting the Americans. Olaf Scholz has pledged an additional 100 billion.

An analysis by Foreign Policy magazine found that the United States nearly doubled the number of authorized arms sales to NATO allies in 2022 compared to 2021 - from $15.5 billion to $28 billion. This is how war becomes a business.

Profiteer No. 2: The US energy companies

By imposing economic sanctions - trade restrictions, asset freezes, exclusion from payment systems or a ban on oil exports - Russia has been isolated. This will irrevocably disrupt previous German-Russian trade for a very long time. The American energy companies are offering to help in this emergency.

They can hardly get to sleep for laughing: LNG imports from America increased by 260 percent in 2022 compared to the previous year. American liquefied natural gas is replacing Russian pipeline gas from Nord Stream 1 and Co.

American oil is also suddenly in demand: according to data provider OilX, some 500 American oil tankers have sailed to Europe since February 2022, helping to push U.S. crude oil exports to a record high last year. Between December 2021 and December 2022, U.S. export figures rose 52 percent.

Profiteer No. 3: The U.S. government

The U.S. administration has an interest in permanently weakening system rival Russia and essentially removing it from the game of great powers. It can do this safely for its own country and the lives of its own soldiers. This is another reason why Washington has no interest in a quick peace deal in Ukraine, as outlined by 99-year-old Henry Kissinger in Davos yesterday.

Joe Biden wants regime change in Moscow. He made that clear in a speech outside the Warsaw City Palace. His foreign minister has also made it clear that they want to take away Russia's ability to wage war.

The source of uncertainty in Europe also benefits the U.S. capital market in the medium term, which is perceived by investors as a safe haven. Capital outflows from Europe in the first months of the war were substantial. Yesterday after the close of the stock exchange, BASF reported a loss of billions of euros, mainly due to write-downs on its Russian business, which has since been terminated.

Germany has strategic interest that conflict be ended quickly

The Europeans, and Germany in particular, have an overriding strategic interest in ensuring that the conflict is ended as quickly as possible, or at least frozen, and does not under any circumstances spread in the direction of the major Western European cities. The more intense and intensive a war rages in Europe, the more pessimistic are the investment conditions, both in the real economy and on the capital markets of London, Paris and Frankfurt.

Conclusion: Russia as a trading partner is de facto exchanged for America as a trading partner. This also strengthens the Americans' negotiating position for talks on future free trade agreements and the China strategy.

If the planning staff at the Department of Defense still existed, it would write down the following paradox for the Secretary in the Executive Summary: Russia is at war with Ukraine - and America is winning.

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

so the problem is you guys over there want to use us like a bank but not pay back,the us taxpayers eat the bill the uk loan you mention The Anglo-American Loan Agreement was a loan made to the United Kingdom by the United States on 15 July 1946, enabling its economy after the Second World War to keep afloat other words a bank you go to a bank take a loan you pay back the loan i'm not a believer in free handouts,remember this is your backyard not mine so if you guys want to step-up to the plate step-up

[Skybird]

Read it again, but this time every line from left to right.

The author does not voice criciticsm, he just descfoirbe the obvious. That the Ukriane support for the US is anythign but "free rides givne to Ukraine". Its credit the Ukraine has to pay back. And in the meanwhile the situation works to the huge profit raising of the US industry.

The argument by some GOP people wanting to cut aid to Ukraine is that the support for Ukraine goes at the cost of the American economy and workers. That holds little truth, according to the above article.

And this is from Die Welt from Decembre 29th, 2006.

Britain is paying the final installments of its World War II war debt today - $83.25 million to the U.S. and $22.7 million to Canada. The money from the U.S. and Canada helped his country defeat Nazi Germany and secure peace and prosperity in the postwar period, Treasury Secretary Ed Balls said.

Britain had borrowed $4.3 billion from the U.S. government in 1945 and $1.2 billion from Canada a year later. Interest was only two percent in each case. Nevertheless, over the years, the country paid back almost twice as much as it had originally borrowed: to date, the government in Washington has received $7.5 billion and Canada $2 billion.

The latest repayment is the 50th installment of each of the repayments that Britain began in 1950. The money was used to buy oil, food, and weapons as well as military equipment. It helped sustain the war effort and drove much of the reconstruction after the war ended.

In theory, Britain would also have debts from World War I to pay and collect. However, a moratorium ended any payment from 1934.

https://www.welt.de/politik/article7...sschulden.html

And this is from the (German) Manager Magazine, Decembre 3rd, 2014

British settle First World War debt

Mourning on the London financial market: Great Britain has announced that it will fully repay a war bond that has been outstanding since 1932 next March. The low interest rates mean that the perpetual bond, which has no maturity date, is no longer worthwhile.

London - The British government plans to repay a "war bond" taken out in 1932 in full next March. The bond, with a volume of 1.9 billion pounds (2.4 billion euros) and an interest rate of 3.5 percent, is to be redeemed on March 9, the Treasury announced Wednesday in London. The paper had been issued in the aftermath of World War I, which ended in 1918, to refinance war debts.

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne told Parliament that the government was settling "all the nation's debts from the First World War."

The financial market is mourning the historic paper: "For anyone who has been following the bond market for a very long time, a bit of magic is lost with this," said Barclays analyst Moyeen Islam.

The security was a so-called perpetual bond that carried no maturity date and could be topped up at any time - a peculiarity of the British bond market, even though companies around the world such as Allianz also use this instrument. Other countries such as France, Austria and Spain have issued bonds with maturities of up to 50 years. German federal bonds mature after a maximum of 30 years.

In view of the current extremely low interest rates, the paper is no longer profitable for the British Treasury. This is because the 30-year government bond is now yielding only 2.639 percent on the market - a record low. The "war bond," on the other hand, was most recently yielding 3.7 percent, still low enough to guarantee a profit for the government and a loss for investors after deducting inflation over the entire term of the paper.

The other six perpetual bonds still in circulation are also to be redeemed, the Finance Ministry said. Some of them date back to the 18th century, when the "South Sea Bubble" triggered one of the first financial crises driven by a speculative bubble. The nationalization of the Bank of England in 1946 was also financed with a perpetual bond.

At the end of October, the government had decided to withdraw a perpetual bond from the market for the first time since the end of World War II. However, this bond, with an interest coupon of 4 percent, had previously traded above par, so the government had to pay less than its current market value to buy it back.
Germany's war debt from 1914-1918 has also not long been settled - but this was due to the compensation agreed in the Treaty of Versailles for the destruction of other countries, as well as repeated renegotiations and, in some cases, decades-long payment freezes. The federal government was finally able to draw a line under this in October 2010.


https://www.manager-magazin.de/finan...a-1006428.html

[Catfish]

The russian embassy has posted energy prices in Europe.
Take a look at the Krim





I guess some heads will roll ..

[Jimbuna]

Kyiv helicopter crash is a grave blow to Ukraine’s war efforts and a personal loss for Zelensky

In the days leading up to the war in Ukraine there was still flickering hope that negotiations could work out and that peace would prevail in the gathering darkness.

However, interior minister Denys Monastyrsky had little doubt Vladimir Putin was determined to invade. To demonstrate the extent of Moscow’s military build-up on the border, he took a group of journalists to the Donbas.

In the town of Novoluhanske, we came under sustained fire. “You see, they did this without provocation,” he exclaimed as we took cover. “This is what the people around here have to live with every day. The Russians are creating false stories and carrying out this kind of bombing, they are creating excuses for war.”

Two Ukrainian soldiers – Anton Sydorov, 35, the father of three daughters, and 34-year-old Denys Kononenko, the father of a young son – were killed by howitzer and mortar rounds that day. Five days later, Russian troops rolled into Ukraine.

Mr Monastyrsky became one of the key leaders in the defence of Kyiv. His ministry, in charge of security, national guard, police and emergency services played a crucial role in those early days of resistance, and continued to do so as the conflict unfolded across the country.

Mr Monastyrsky later went on to head investigations into atrocities carried out against civilians, while also liaising on prisoner exchanges including the release of 200 Ukrainians captured at the Azovstal steelworks in Mariupol. He also became a familiar figure to the public with his regular updates on casualty figures.

His death, along with six of his senior officials, in Wednesday’s Kyiv helicopter crash is a grave blow to the country’s war efforts, as it prepares for the next phase of the campaign with an expected escalation in combat.

The 42-year-old minister is the most senior Ukrainian official to die since the beginning of the conflict and one of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s closest and most long-term confidantes. Those killed alongside him included his deputy, Yevhen Yenin, and state secretary Yurii Lubkovich, who ran the department.

At least a dozen people were killed in the crash, including children, as the aircraft came down near a nursery outside the capital.

Ukraine’s security service SBU said it was investigating several possible reasons behind the crash including technical faults, breach of flight safety rules as well as sabotage. The helicopter was flying low, as is the practice with such flights in order to avoid anti-aircraft missiles.

Ukraine’s police chief Ihor Klymenko, who has taken over as interior minister, said the aircraft belonged to the emergency services. Other officials said it was a French Super Puma. There is nothing yet to indicate the crash was anything other than an accident. But in the febrile atmosphere of war there have been rumours and speculation on social media of plots and of explosives on board.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...4f5ddb05d5e780

[Jimbuna]

Lukashenko braces for civil turmoil as Putin aims to drag Belarus into Ukraine war

Alexander Lukashenko could face mutiny if he decided to send Belarusian troops to the battlefield, exiled opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya has warned. The Opposition leader, who is seeking to garner international support to challenge Lukashenko after a rigged vote, suggested Lukashenko's unwillingness to mobilise his own troops is evidence his regime is weaker and more unstable than the west thinks. Given Belarusians' support for Ukraine, deploying the country's soldiers would backfire on Europe's longest-serving President, she added.

Speaking on the sideline of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Ms Tsikhanouskaya told the Financial Times the prospect of Lukashenko sending troops is improbable.

She said: "Lukashenko is already fully participating in the war. But the fact that our troops have not been sent to Ukraine is not because Lukashenko does not want to participate. He knows Belarusian do not see Ukrainian as enemies."

Belarus has so far been used as a launch pad for Putin's military to launch attacks from northwestern Ukraine in the early days of the war.

While Lukashenko has allowed the Russian army to carry out military training and combat readiness exercises, he has not been dragged into the conflict. Fears mounted that Putin's visit to Belarus in December could trigger the country's direct participation in the conflict.

But the Belarusian strongman has so far shown no signs of wanting to send his own troops to Ukraine.

According to Belarus's opposition leader, such a move would backfire on Lukashenko and be followed by rebellion inside the country.

She explained: "If Lukashenko gives the order to participate, or even if he declares mobilisation, which would be the first sign of getting involved, what would happen? Massive disobedience, strikes and people fleeing Belarus as fast as they can. That is why I doubt Lukashenko is going to give his order."

Amid the growing threat of another Russian incursion from Belarus, Ukrainian officials are reportedly mounting defence lines. Air force drills will be held until February 1 using all of Belarus' military airfields and joint army exercises involving a "mechanised brigade subdivision," the Belarusian defence ministry said.

A Russian foreign ministry official further upped the ante last Friday saying Belarus could be dragged into the conflict, should it come under Ukrainian attack.

Aleksey Polishchuk told the state-owned TASS news agency: "From a legal point of view, the use of military force by the Kyiv regime or the invasion of the territory of Belarus or Russia by the armed forces of Ukraine are sufficient grounds for a collective response."

Pavel Slunkin, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations who specialises in Belarus's domestic and foreign policy issues, also discarded Belarus' participation in the conflict on the basis that the Belarusian army does not have the capacity to turn the tide of the war in favour of Russia.

The Warsaw-based researcher cited Belarus' small combat-ready segment of 15,000 troops, lack of readiness and the mined northwestern Ukraine which would decimate soldiers.

According to a Chatham House opinion poll, more than 90 percent of Belarusians oppose joining forces with Russia to attack Ukraine.

Echoing Ms Tsikhanouskaya's comments, Ms Slunkin said sending Belarusian to war could trigger a "serious wave of discontent" within the country.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...0c287912369478

[Jimbuna]