What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

Closest the world has been to nuclear war since the Cuban crises. Euro Savages know no limit of barbarism:-


Ukraine war: Putin not bluffing about nuclear weapons, EU says​

    • Published
      15 hours ago
Share
Related Topics
Vladimir Putin
IMAGE SOURCE,SHUTTERSTOCK
Image caption,
Russia's president made a thinly veiled threat this week he could use nuclear weapons
The EU must take Vladimir Putin's threats he could use nuclear weapons in the conflict in Ukraine seriously, the bloc's foreign policy chief has said.
Josep Borrell told the BBC's Lyse Doucet that the war had reached a "dangerous moment".
His remarks come as Russia begins a partial mobilisation and moves to annex four regions of Ukraine.
Mr Putin has faced setbacks on the battlefield, with his forces pushed back by a Ukrainian counter-offensive.
"Certainly it's a dangerous moment because the Russian army has been pushed into a corner, and Putin's reaction - threatening using nuclear arms - it's very bad," Mr Borrell said.
Seven months since Russia's invasion of Ukraine began, analysts agree that President Putin's forces are on the back foot, but he said a "diplomatic solution" must be reached, one that "preserves the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine".

"Otherwise, we can finish the war, but we will not have peace, and we will have another war," he said.
In a rare address to the nation earlier this week, Mr Putin said his country had "various weapons of destruction" and would "use all the means available to us", adding: "I'm not bluffing."


"When people say it is not a bluff, you have to take them seriously," Mr Borrell said.
In the same speech President Putin announced the call-up of 300,000 Russians who have done compulsory military service, sparking protests and reports of people fleeing the country to avoid being sent to the front line.
It comes after a rapid counter-offensive in which Ukraine says it took more than 8,000 sq km (3,088 sq miles) back from Russian forces.
Now self-styled referendums on joining Russia are being held in four occupied regions. Ukraine has denounced these as annexation attempts, and reported that armed Russian soldiers are going door-to-door collecting votes.

line

Analysis box by Lyse Doucet, chief international correspondent

Ukraine has dominated this year's UN General Assembly as this costly war drags on with no clear sense of a way out. Europe's foreign policy chief was surprisingly blunt and visibly pained.
He shared the anxious lament he was hearing everywhere he went. From friends on holiday, to leaders from around the world attending the UN General Assembly this week, they were all asking him when this war would end. "Stop this war, I can't pay my electricity bill," was, he regretted, a common refrain.
Mr Borrell was willing to say in public what many express in private - that Europe and its allies were struggling to control the narrative in this war as Russia spins the view that European sanctions against Russia were to blame for this suffering.
But Moscow's new and worrying threats, including a thinly-veiled nuclear one, are also concentrating minds. Most Western leaders, including Mr Borrell, are still categorical about the need to stay the course in a conflict with many far-reaching consequences, most of all for Ukraine, but many others too.
line

Mr Borrell dismissed concerns that the EU's arms supplies were running low, and said it must continue providing military support to Ukraine, as well as applying economic sanctions against President Putin and his allies and conducting diplomatic activity.
He admitted that the rising cost of energy prices caused by the conflict was a matter of concern.

"People in my country tell me the price of the gas means we cannot continue working, we cannot continue making my business run," the Spanish politician said, adding he had heard similar concerns from leaders from Africa, South America and Southeast Asia.
Mr Borrell called on President Putin to play his part in reaching a negotiated solution, saying "in order to dance the tango, you need two".
"Everybody who has gone to Moscow, to the Kremlin to talk to Putin, they came back with the same answer, 'I [Putin] have military objectives, and if I don't get these military objectives I will continue the fight.' This is certainly a worrisome direction, but we have to continue to support Ukraine," he said.
 
. . .
Controlling 80 percent of what? Those occupied territories are within Ukraine artillery.
Maybe you should care of how to hold Russia itself together as it is collapsing. Today I read because Microsoft doesn’t grant license anymore Russia turns to Linux. Will be challenging because most of smart people, IT professionals have left Russia.
Yeah sure
80% of terroirty it wants annex.
If Ukraine wants shell then it's okay.
Both Russia and Ukraine can shell.
See who gets tired.
Ukraine and the west.
Or russia
 
.
See my above post. They’d also destroy their entire operations in Crimea. Not just their ships alone. Their entire war effort in Ukraine would end.

They don't lose anything more this way. They know they are f**ked and will have to concede defeat as is, and will be f**ked and forced to concede anyways if US intervenes. But in both cases they walk away with their lives, and some parts of their empire.

The right move is to deny them the former.
 
. .
And thats the benefit of a free society (Pakistan, US): any body can talk on TV on a difference of opinion. In Russia, you go to jail. In Iran you go to Jail. Because they put people in jail that disagree with them is the reason they are both in a bad spot. Russia keeps firing its generals.

Iran didn't bring its F-14 pilots out of prison till 18 months after the Iran Iraq war started and realized that the only pilots that could fly the Tomcat and defeat the Iraqis were in jail.

So more for public disagreements. Doesn't mean Fed was wrong.

China will increase support for Russia. A weaker Ukraine is a good thing for China. A weaker Ukraine means less American influence in Europe. A weaker Ukraine is more dependent on China for economy.
Thats pretty pathetic: China needs a week nobody (Ukraine) to feel strong, But thats to be expected when you have an army that punches its adversary (India) vs. shoot them. Is this how they tried to fight the Japanese in WWII?
 
.
That's political point, I can tell you why that is the way to go but I cannot necessarily explain why that is the case.

All I can say is Biden was weak, if we have people like Bush (not going to use Trump, because we would not have done anything if he is in power), we would have sent in the cavalry a long time ago. You want to crush the offensive, you don't muck around and try to look good in front of the camera, but then that was what our politician has been doing since Iraq and Afghanistan.

And to some degree, I think Biden was weak because people criticize how he handle the Afghanistan drawn down.
I will respectfully disagree. Biden (and/or any non-Trump president) would have taken the same approach and played the 'options' game and hedge their bets:

1. Provide as much defensive capability as you can.
2. Now war is as much about signal and data as it is about kinetic effect. Go into overdrive on what NATO can detect (satellite, intercept) and provide that to Ukranians to improve the odds of their defensive. I have no doubt that beyond just passive detection, and lot of active targeting information must have been supplied for Ukraine to have the outcomes they were getting in the first 90 days
3. The play in summary was to give all you can to defend it and see how they come through.
4. At the off-chance that somehow Ukraine is able to defend itself then re-assess.
5. This is where the Ukrainians surprised everybody. No 'outside -n' view by any NATO country could estimate their ability to withstand pain and inflict damage till it was underway. You saw how wrong everybody was about the ANA on the opposite spectrum. There was little tolerance to do that analysis.
6. Once they resisted (or if they resisted), then go all in with support because it means they may be able to do something useful with what you assist them with
7. You don't bet on a strategy of assistance on military you don't think is capable or deserving of it: why throw your prestige, money, only to know it won't get the outcome you want.
8. Also in a democracy, you need to build public support for the long-term ('forever' as a loser who lives in Canada but loves everything about China, and never been past China Town) and coalition of allies/partners. This is what was needed.
9. Plus the real effect is on the economic side over the 2-4 year horizon where the coalition and the political support is really needed: lose some oil/gas for 1-2 winters for the price of moving Russia's economy back by 16 years.

The oil and gas they have will last a bit but without western know how, they can't drill more of that. And ithe little they could continue drilling, what do you do with all that oil with nobody to sell it to or sell it but nobody to buy things from: its like running a brothel on a ship in the middle of the sea. There are no male customers for the commodity.


Had Ukrainians lost Kiev, this would have been the end of the chapter. Ukraine would have been a closed book. Lots of lives saved but a front-line state lost. Food prices would have been lower, though sanctions would have been active to bring Russia economy back to the 80s. No digital technology, no computers, no airplanes. Just electricity to run a toaster is it.
 
.
Well firstly US will never let us know what the real response will be. But If Russia uses tactics nukes in ukraine, a nuke attack on russia would technically be a first strike.

And I think any first strike on russia would be a mix of nuke and conventional designed to first eliminate Russias ability to use nukes. Then it would be followed by conventional invasion. Cities would certainly not be nuked unless there was a legitimate nuclear target there.
You are right, none of us know US plan just like we didn't know the US plan when every other day US was saying Russia was preparing for invasion last Dec.

I am sure that the rank and file commander is probably in doubt of following an order like this. I know that in Desert Storm, US had given overt/covert instructions to Iraqi frontline units on the fate that would personally fall on any unit that used chemical weapons IF Saddam gave the order. That was the insurance against IF Saddam gave the order.

It doesn't have to be under threat of action, it can be that if you use it, its going to kill your own troops and fallout blow back to your capital
 
. . .
I will respectfully disagree. Biden (and/or any non-Trump president) would have taken the same approach and played the 'options' game and hedge their bets:

1. Provide as much defensive capability as you can.
2. Now war is as much about signal and data as it is about kinetic effect. Go into overdrive on what NATO can detect (satellite, intercept) and provide that to Ukranians to improve the odds of their defensive. I have no doubt that beyond just passive detection, and lot of active targeting information must have been supplied for Ukraine to have the outcomes they were getting in the first 90 days
3. The play in summary was to give all you can to defend it and see how they come through.
4. At the off-chance that somehow Ukraine is able to defend itself then re-assess.
5. This is where the Ukrainians surprised everybody. No 'outside -n' view by any NATO country could estimate their ability to withstand pain and inflict damage till it was underway. You saw how wrong everybody was about the ANA on the opposite spectrum. There was little tolerance to do that analysis.
6. Once they resisted (or if they resisted), then go all in with support because it means they may be able to do something useful with what you assist them with
7. You don't bet on a strategy of assistance on military you don't think is capable or deserving of it: why throw your prestige, money, only to know it won't get the outcome you want.
8. Also in a democracy, you need to build public support for the long-term ('forever' as a loser who lives in Canada but loves everything about China, and never been past China Town) and coalition of allies/partners. This is what was needed.
9. Plus the real effect is on the economic side over the 2-4 year horizon where the coalition and the political support is really needed: lose some oil/gas for 1-2 winters for the price of moving Russia's economy back by 16 years.

The oil and gas they have will last a bit but without western know how, they can't drill more of that. And ithe little they could continue drilling, what do you do with all that oil with nobody to sell it to or sell it but nobody to buy things from: its like running a brothel on a ship in the middle of the sea. There are no male customers for the commodity.


Had Ukrainians lost Kiev, this would have been the end of the chapter. Ukraine would have been a closed book. Lots of lives saved but a front-line state lost. Food prices would have been lower, though sanctions would have been active to bring Russia economy back to the 80s. No digital technology, no computers, no airplanes. Just electricity to run a toaster is it.
You are of course entitled to my opinion, as much as I do, and that's my opinion, it's okay you disagree with.

However, I will want to say one thing tho. Hedging the bet is the right move, however, this is actually the third success Counter Attacks carried out by the Ukrainian, first being push back all the territories North of Kyiv in late March, second being Push back all the territories north of Kharkiv and Sumy in May, and this Kharkiv Offensive is the third successful counter attack (fourth if we also counted the limited local offensive in Mykolaiv and Kherson leading to liberation of snake island and some ground North of Kherson)

So if this is a bet, and the West want to wait and see how the Ukrainian is doing and whether or not they should be helped by NATO I will say if I am a risky betting man, I would put my hat in the ring after they push the Russian off Kyiv, and if I was a conservative betting man, I would bet on Ukraine after the Sumy/Kharkiv offensive, you know by then they can't lose, but then the west and the US did nothing, and even a month after the third successful counter offensive, the support is still not coming.

The Ukrainian really need to have that list of weapons to make a different, otherwise it will be a slow grind. they need a big push, and the west is probably at this stage setting them back at the moment, because I don't think the Russian would have answer to any general big push (like push on all front) if the Ukrainian did it. But then the Ukrainian won't because they are lacking the tanks, artillery, SPG to make it happen, you can't just lob bodies against the line and hope it will break thru and you won't be able to catch Russia with their pants down twice.

That's my assessment.
 
.
Any Nuclear attack on Russia will harm China and North Korea. They will retaliate if harmed.
China and North Korea will retaliate because when the US responds to the Russian attack, they will also attack China and North Korea for this very reason.
If You realize that China will attack the US. why don’t You think the US will do so as well? So the US will attack China, and China will be destroyed.
The question is if Pakistan goes the same way.

Well firstly US will never let us know what the real response will be. But If Russia uses tactics nukes in ukraine, a nuke attack on russia would technically be a first strike.

And I think any first strike on russia would be a mix of nuke and conventional designed to first eliminate Russias ability to use nukes. Then it would be followed by conventional invasion. Cities would certainly not be nuked unless there was a legitimate nuclear target there.
Any nuclear attack that affects NATO, even by fallout is a first strike.
 
. .

Exactly, the point the guy talks is that the worst thing for Putin is that he will be forced to walk back, and that's all. He will only lose his army, $300B in US banks, and that's all, but Ukraine will have half the country ruined.

It will be a very different conversation with B52s above Moscow. But there would be no B2s, B52s or anything flying above Moscow with Biden in charge, and Putin knows it.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom