What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

To blame the Russians completely is a little far-fetched. Why was the Ukrainian leader willing to go to war with Russia.

As for victim blaming, that is just your opinion.
The Russians literally invaded their country, are you high?

It's like India invading and taking Karachi and Lahore, and then you complaining about Pakistanis fighting back against the invasion.

Diplomacy wouldn't have stopped Russia's armies, so don't give me that bullshit excuse.

This isn't my opinion, this is indisputable fact.
 
.
The Russians literally invaded their country, are you high?

It's like India invading and taking Karachi and Lahore, and then you complaining about Pakistanis fighting back against the invasion.

This isn't my opinion, this is indisputable fact.
No I am not high.

Are you high on drugs?

Just because we have difference of opinion.

Russia invaded because they felt their interests are at stake. USA would have done the same

The Russians literally invaded their country, are you high?

It's like India invading and taking Karachi and Lahore, and then you complaining about Pakistanis fighting back against the invasion.

Diplomacy wouldn't have stopped Russia's armies, so don't give me that bullshit excuse.

This isn't my opinion, this is indisputable fact.
And what is your opinion on Russian Crimea annexation?
 
.



An unprecedented development In the war if the news is true:
Belgorod direction:
The Ukrainian Armed Forces are moving along the E105 road in the direction of Belgorod (Russia). The settlements of Oktyabrskyi and Murom are surrounded. The village of Zhuravlyovka has moved into the gray zone. There is no opposition from the local population.

the only way out alive for Prigozhin is to surrender to Ukraine right now. Putin is going to murder him otherwise..he is deadman walking.
 
.
No I am not high.

Are you high on drugs?

Just because we have difference of opinion.

Russia invaded because they felt their interests are at stake. USA would have done the same
This is not a difference of opinion, this is you ignoring factual information. Being wrong doesn't hold the same value as being right.

The US would have invaded, and that would still be condemnable and unjustifiable.

This is not a debate, I am not debating you.
 
.
This is not a difference of opinion, this is you ignoring factual information. Being wrong doesn't hold the same value as being right.

The US would have invaded, and that would still be condemnable and unjustifiable.

This is not a debate, I am not debating you.
Well Sir, if any other Great Power would have done the same, why condemn Russia then, because its interests are at stake.
 
.
Well Sir, if any other Great Power would have done the same, why condemn Russia then, because its interests are at stake.
Because those other great powers would be condemned as well.

Or did you not read what I wrote?

Who cares if it's interests are at stake? It invaded a sovereign nation, that in itself is condemnable.
 
.

UK confirms supply of Storm Shadow long-range missiles in Ukraine​

    • Published
      10 hours ago
    • comments
      Comments
Share
Related Topics
Storm Shadow missile (file pic)
IMAGE SOURCE,GARY DAWSON/SHUTTERSTOCK
By James Gregory
BBC News

The UK has confirmed it is supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles it requested for its fight against invading Russian forces.
The Storm Shadow cruise missile has a range of over 250km (155 miles), according to the manufacturer.
By contrast, the US-supplied Himars missiles used by Ukraine only have a range of around 80 km (50 miles).
The weapons will give Ukraine the "best chance" of defending itself, UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said.
They are fired from aircraft, so the longer range means Ukrainian pilots will be able to stay further from the frontlines.
Once launched, the Storm Shadow drops to low altitude to avoid detection by enemy radar, before latching onto its target with an infra-red seeker.
The announcement was made in the House of Commons by Mr Wallace. The decision follows repeated pleas from Ukraine for more weapons from the West.
Mr Wallace said the missiles would "allow Ukraine to push back Russian forces based on Ukrainian sovereign territory".
He said the UK took the decision after Russia "continued down a dark path" of targeting civilian infrastructure in Ukraine.
Mr Wallace wrote to his Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu in December, he said, to warn that further attacks could result in the UK donating more capable weapons.
He said the missiles were "going into" or already in Ukrainian hands, and described the move as "calibrated and proportionate to Russia's escalations".
"None of this would have been necessary had Russia not invaded," he said.
He said the missiles would be compatible with Ukraine's existing, Soviet-era planes and praised the technicians and scientists who made that possible.
But he warned the range of the British-supplied Storm Shadows was "not in the same league" as Russia's own missile systems - with some of Moscow's weapons being able to travel far further.
Earlier this year, Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov insisted longer-range missiles would not be used to attack targets within Russia itself.
"If we could strike at a distance of up to 300 kilometres, the Russian army wouldn't be able to provide defence and will have to lose," he told an EU meeting.
"Ukraine is ready to provide any guarantees that your weapons will not be involved in attacks on the Russian territory."
A UK RAF Eurofighter Typhoon with Storm Shadow cruise missiles
IMAGE SOURCE,UK MOD/CROWN COPYRIGHT
Image caption,
The UK's Royal Air Force arms its Eurofighter Typhoon jets with Storm Shadow missiles
In February, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he was prepared to send long-range missiles to Ukraine, and the British government opened a bidding process for their procurement.
"Together we must help Ukraine to shield its cities from Russian bombs and Iranian drones," Mr Sunak said then. "That's why the United Kingdom will be the first country to give Ukraine longer-range weapons."
On Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow would take an "appropriate" military response to any British-supplied Storm Shadow weapons used by Ukrainian forces.
The Storm Shadow missile has been operated by both British and French air forces and has been used previously in the Gulf, Iraq and Libya.
The British-supplied missiles can only be fired by aircraft, but French missiles can be fired from ships and submarines.

Media caption,
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky says his army needs more equipment ahead of counter-offensive

Related Topics​

 
.
Because those other great powers would be condemned as well.

Or did you not read what I wrote?

Who cares if it's interests are at stake? It invaded a sovereign nation, that in itself is condemnable.
Yes, but why does USA defend Israel at the UN all the time. So you see not everyone follows the rules all the time.

I understand your point though.
 
.
Yes, but why does USA defend Israel at the UN all the time. So you see not everyone follows the rules all the time.

I understand your point though.
That's like the worst example you could give, because Israel is constantly condemned all the time and only protected due to the US's veto power.

It also has nothing to do with my point.
 
.
Because those other great powers would be condemned as well.

Or did you not read what I wrote?

Who cares if it's interests are at stake? It invaded a sovereign nation, that in itself is condemnable.
What about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Do you condemn them too?

That's like the worst example you could give, because Israel is constantly condemned all the time and only protected due to the US's veto power.

It also has nothing to do with my point.
No, not exactly.

USA doesn't follow the rules, so why should Russia? Again it is a matter of opinion.

Just because there are rules does not mean the Great Powers will follow them.
 
.
What about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Do you condemn them too?


No, not exactly.

USA doesn't follow the rules, so why should Russia. Again it is a matter of opinion.

Just because there are rules does not mean the Great Powers will follow them.
Of course I condemn them, but this isn't about me. You're clearly a newbie, otherwise you wouldn't ask me such a stupid question.

Just because murderers exist, doesn't mean you should go around killing everyone you see.

Seriously, what are you even talking about? You clearly don't have a point to make, so you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Listen, I'm done here. It's clear you don't have a real point to make, so I'm gonna disengage now.
 
.
Of course I condemn them, but this isn't about me. You're clearly a newbie, otherwise you wouldn't ask me such a stupid question.

Just because murderers exist, doesn't mean you should go around killing everyone you see.

Seriously, what are you even talking about? You clearly don't have a point to make, so you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
No, I am not arguing for the sake of argument.
Actually I am an old member, but this is a new profile for me.

No need to get angry (by using the word "stupid") which shows your immaturity. You are entitled to your point of view.

I do not think my question is stupid.

It is a valid question that do you condemn the actions of other Great Powers and not just Russia.

Of course I condemn them, but this isn't about me. You're clearly a newbie, otherwise you wouldn't ask me such a stupid question.

Just because murderers exist, doesn't mean you should go around killing everyone you see.

Seriously, what are you even talking about? You clearly don't have a point to make, so you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Listen, I'm done here. It's clear you don't have a real point to make, so I'm gonna disengage now.
You missed my point. When other UNSC members do not follow the rules, why should Russia.
Its a dog eat dog world isn't it?

Again instead of saying I have no sound arguments, why don't you disprove them.
You said my arguments are flawed or irrelevant then prove it so.

Instead of using "stupid" which shows your immaturity.
 
Last edited:
.
Yes but Russia feels the West is crossing a red line in Russia's national interests and security.

Russia has a right to defend its own interests.

In this day and age, human societies exist in the form of countries with internationally recognized borders. Every country is supposed to respect borders of the other country. The decision to absorb another country should be through mutual acceptance.

The alternative is to allow the STRONG to impose their will on the WEAK just like in old times.

You have your view but I have a moralistic take on this theme.

For perspective: Is it acceptable for India to take over Pakistan by force under any pretext? My answer is NO.
 
.
In this day and age, human societies exist in the form of countries with internationally recognized borders. Every country is supposed to respect borders of the other country. The decision to absorb another country should be through mutual acceptance.

The alternative is to allow the STRONG to impose their will on the WEAK just like in old times.

You have your view but I have a moralistic take on this theme.

For perspective: Is it acceptable for India to take over Pakistan by force under any pretext? My answer is NO.
I respect your opinion, and I agree it is wrong for on country to conquer another without consultation of the victim country's peoples.

Of course I condemn them, but this isn't about me. You're clearly a newbie, otherwise you wouldn't ask me such a stupid question.

Just because murderers exist, doesn't mean you should go around killing everyone you see.

Seriously, what are you even talking about? You clearly don't have a point to make, so you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Listen, I'm done here. It's clear you don't have a real point to make, so I'm gonna disengage now.
I believe Russia supports the Russian breakaway provinces in Eastern Ukraine.
 
.
The Russians literally invaded their country, are you high?

It's like India invading and taking Karachi and Lahore, and then you complaining about Pakistanis fighting back against the invasion.

Diplomacy wouldn't have stopped Russia's armies, so don't give me that bullshit excuse.

This isn't my opinion, this is indisputable fact.
I have done some more research on the matter. Yes Russia has violated the UNSC charter. The invasion is illegal.
There you are correct on some matters of this issue.

But which UNSC member follows the UN rules anyways?
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom