Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[sammuel]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1701745373214019960

Let's be honest, Ukrainians are being used as cannon fodder in this conflict. They are being led to an early grave, and this could have been avoided.

How could it been avoided ?

There were convoys of Russian Armour massing outsdide Kiev for two month , while Putin pretended to negotiate and the time planning to attack. Had Ukranians not pushed them out , there would be no more Ukraine.

You may argue that now , that most of Ukraine is secure, there may be room for negotiation .

But to argue that a year and a half ago Ukraine had any option but fight , is simply not true .




~

 

[Corax]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1701745373214019960

Let's be honest, Ukrainians are being used as cannon fodder in this conflict. They are being led to an early grave, and this could have been avoided. I'm in no way suggesting that what the Russians are doing is right, but things could have taken a different turn if rational minds had handled this situation. This entire conflict seems like nothing more than a chest-beating tournament. I mean, why isn't NATO sending its troops in full support? This massacre could have been prevented if those in power had considered the repercussions of such a war on the citizens of both countries.
In the end, this war will likely be resolved through negotiations at the peace table, just like many other wars. So, why not start those discussions now? Is it really so crucial for a few politicians to feel invincible, or can't this issue be resolved peacefully?
Biden,Macroon,Rishi and Putin all same. Putting their ego ahead of their people.

Have been saying that since day one. The cold war never ended for the US, they've been sponsoring and meddling in internal Ukrainian politics, and when the Russians finally made good on their red lines, the Americans saw an opportunity to weaken a nation that still has thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at them. A proxy war of the US against Russia using Ukrainian cannon fodder, rinse and repeat of the proxy wars during the cold war era.

 

[ADIL SHERDIL]

How could it been avoided ?

There were convoys of Russian Armour massing outsdide Kiev for two month , while Putin pretended to negotiate and the time planning to attack. Had Ukranians not pushed them out , there would be no more Ukraine.

You may argue that now , that most of Ukraine is secure, there may be room for negotiation .

But to argue that a year and a half ago Ukraine had any option but fight , is simply not true .




~

It's not as if Putin suddenly decided one day to order his troops to advance into Ukraine. There's a backstory to this conflict, and it could have been prevented. It's essential to remember that ultimately, this war will conclude through negotiations at a table, not on any battlefield, whether in Kiev or Moscow, but in a diplomatic room. And yes, these casualties could have been prevented. I realize that not everyone on this forum may grasp this, as some tend to romanticize war, but a few do understand the horrors it inflicts on nations.

 

[Corax]

It's not as if Putin suddenly decided one day to order his troops to advance into Ukraine. There's a backstory to this conflict, and it could have been prevented. It's essential to remember that ultimately, this war will conclude through negotiations at a table, not on any battlefield, whether in Kiev or Moscow, but in a diplomatic room. And yes, these casualties could have been prevented. I realize that not everyone on this forum may grasp this, as some tend to romanticize war, but a few do understand the horrors it inflicts on nations.

That backstory is something that western media and politicians conveniently forget. For most lame people, as you said, this all started when Putin woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine or even to recreate the USSR, and most people bought that line.

 

[ADIL SHERDIL]

Have been saying that since day one. The cold war never ended for the US, they've been sponsoring and meddling in internal Ukrainian politics, and when the Russians finally made good on their red lines, the Americans saw an opportunity to weaken a nation that still has thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at them. A proxy war of the US against Russia using Ukrainian cannon fodder, rinse and repeat of the proxy wars during the cold war era.

The United States' primary global export seems to be war itself. Since 1945, the U.S. has consistently been involved in various conflicts; the only variable is the identity of its adversaries. So, there's no real surprise here. It was ultimately up to Ukrainians to act in the best interests of their country. Ukraine isn't like Afghanistan, where the Soviets were ensnared; it's an entirely different situation. Unfortunately, the ones who consistently lose in these scenarios are the people.

 

[sammuel]

~

Russia's $300 million Kilo-class submarine hit in attack on Black Sea Fleet naval base as fireballs light up shipyard

A $300m Russian submarine has been damaged in a Ukrainian missile strike that sent flames and smoke rising from the capital of occupied Crimea.

www.lbc.co.uk

Ukraine Just Blew Up Two Russian Warships In Their Drydock

The Russian fleet’s security is going to get worse. The number and variety of deep-strike weapons with which Ukrainian forces can attack the fleet are growing.

www.forbes.com

~

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1701745373214019960

Let's be honest, Ukrainians are being used as cannon fodder in this conflict. They are being led to an early grave, and this could have been avoided. I'm in no way suggesting that what the Russians are doing is right, but things could have taken a different turn if rational minds had handled this situation. This entire conflict seems like nothing more than a chest-beating tournament. I mean, why isn't NATO sending its troops in full support? This massacre could have been prevented if those in power had considered the repercussions of such a war on the citizens of both countries.
In the end, this war will likely be resolved through negotiations at the peace table, just like many other wars. So, why not start those discussions now? Is it really so crucial for a few politicians to feel invincible, or can't this issue be resolved peacefully?
Biden,Macroon,Rishi and Putin all same. Putting their ego ahead of their people.

Ukrainans are not ”used”. That is a Russian narrative. Ukraine is defending themselves. The only realistic way to avoid this is to surrender.

There is no point in discussing a treaty with someone that does not honour treaties, so trading small parts of Ukraine for ”peace”. Just means a pause in the war.

Putin has been offered peace where Russians return all occupied Ukrainan territory, pays damages and sending war criminals to the ICC.

These are reasonable terms, yet Putin refuses and continues to get both Russians and Ukrainans killed.

The United States' primary global export seems to be war itself. Since 1945, the U.S. has consistently been involved in various conflicts; the only variable is the identity of its adversaries. So, there's no real surprise here. It was ultimately up to Ukrainians to act in the best interests of their country. Ukraine isn't like Afghanistan, where the Soviets were ensnared; it's an entirely different situation. Unfortunately, the ones who consistently lose in these scenarios are the people.

Korea - started by North Korea.
Vietnam - started by North Vietnam
Libya - Started by Gaddafi
Syria - started by Assad
Iraq - started by Saddam
Afghanistan - started by Al Qaeda
All these countries were armed by Russia/the Soviet Union.

 

[ADIL SHERDIL]

Ukrainans are not ”used”. That is a Russian narrative. Ukraine is defending themselves. The only realistic way to avoid this is to surrender.

There is no point in discussing a treaty with someone that does not honour treaties, so trading small parts of Ukraine for ”peace”. Just means a pause in the war.

Putin has been offered peace where Russians return all occupied Ukrainan territory, pays damages and sending war criminals to the ICC.

These are reasonable terms, yet Putin refuses and continues to get both Russians and Ukrainans killed.

The Soviet Union dissolved in the 1990s, and some wonder why Putin later focused primarily on Ukraine. To provide some context, NATO was originally formed as a response to the USSR and its allies. However, the USSR ceased to exist in the 1990s, yet NATO continued to operate. NATO then aimed to expand its membership, including countries that were formerly part of the USSR's sphere of influence.
This raises questions about what Russia could have done differently to prevent this situation. Why was NATO so determined to include Ukraine, and what contribution would Ukraine make to NATO's capabilities? Some argue that, similar to the Treaty of Versailles, NATO and the U.S. may have sought to exert pressure on Russia. This is especially noteworthy since Russia was once an ally in defeating the Nazis.

 

[Viet]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1701774908403904799

That’s a huge blow to the Russians. The kilo sub costs hundreds millions dollars per piece.

Putin should order all naval ships to leave Crimea now before too late before they are sunk.

 

[altafahmed]

Ukrainans are not ”used”. That is a Russian narrative. Ukraine is defending themselves. The only realistic way to avoid this is to surrender.

There is no point in discussing a treaty with someone that does not honour treaties, so trading small parts of Ukraine for ”peace”. Just means a pause in the war.

Putin has been offered peace where Russians return all occupied Ukrainan territory, pays damages and sending war criminals to the ICC.

These are reasonable terms, yet Putin refuses and continues to get both Russians and Ukrainans killed.

Ukrainians are defending themselves in current situation, but US put them in this situation, when Western diplomat used to instigate and participate in rallies against the Russian allied government.

 

[ADIL SHERDIL]

Korea - started by North Korea.
Vietnam - started by North Vietnam
Libya - Started by Gaddafi
Syria - started by Assad
Iraq - started by Saddam
Afghanistan - started by Al Qaeda
All these countries were armed by Russia/the Soviet Union.

If we follow your reasoning, it would suggest that the EMU War was initiated by the EMU itself. When we examine the wars you mentioned, they all involved direct U.S. intervention, leading to the expansion of conflicts and the loss of millions of lives. For example, the Iraq War was justified on the grounds of the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), which were never found. This conflict resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, but it often seemed that the victims, primarily Muslims and people of color, received insufficient attention.
Then, there's the case of Libya, where the U.S. intervened, resulting not only in the removal of its leader but also in the destabilization of what was once one of Africa's more stable nations.
Regarding the Korean War, it's worth noting that the U.S. became involved despite the fact that Korea shared a border with China. To maintain control of a strategically important location, the U.S. initiated a war that ultimately divided a nation in two, with both sides willing to inflict harm upon each other.
The United States has been involved in numerous wars, and while I can't delve into each one here, I recommend studying history from multiple perspectives. Doing so will enhance your understanding of these conflicts.(NO OFFENCE MY FRIEND)
Having different opinion of thought wont make you my enemy

 

[F-22Raptor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1701917293633028509

The Kilo class submarine likely suffered serious damage as well.

 

[vizier]

It's not as if Putin suddenly decided one day to order his troops to advance into Ukraine. There's a backstory to this conflict, and it could have been prevented. It's essential to remember that ultimately, this war will conclude through negotiations at a table, not on any battlefield, whether in Kiev or Moscow, but in a diplomatic room. And yes, these casualties could have been prevented. I realize that not everyone on this forum may grasp this, as some tend to romanticize war, but a few do understand the horrors it inflicts on nations.

Leaving aside the pre war possible preventive actions at the beginning of the conflict Ukraine had to fight back to defend itself but now instead of sacrificing a million more Ukranian soldiers gambling with F16s and ATACMS Ukraine can much easily get 4 provinces back in the negotiation table. An agreement addendum to Minsk 2 that makes both sides do take steps at a required timetable and 4 regions as demilitarized buffer zones. Not creating any more fortifications or similar in nearby regions for future battles and even reducing the fortifications in nearby areas neighboring these 4 regions according to a timetable. Every delay would result in some sanctions for the side that delays the items in the agreement. Although the sanctions would be symbolic both sides can't accept to be the initiator of another conflict so they will comply accordingly. This way one side can't say to the other that the other side didn't comply with the agreement so I delay my items which may have been the case of not implementing the Minsk 2 agreement. Military solution that is pursued today does not involve by any means the minority rights living in those regions subjected to the Minsk agreements. Nato countries like France,Germany,Poland etc. act as guarantors of the agreement so without Nato membership security issue of Ukraine can be handled after the agreement.

There can be a timetable and at least Zaporijia and Kherson would be taken back through negotiations by Ukraine within several years. Later on Donetsk and Luhansk as the minority rights + security issues for both sides are handled accordingly. Even if Donetsk and Luhansk status would result in ceasefire-freeze of conflict after the current agreement, Russian future political leadership would want to repair relations with EU and would again make an agreement to end the freezed conflict in return of Eu lifting of sanctions completely. Donetsk and Luhansk is not strategical in long term for Russia unlike Crimea that hosts their Black Sea fleet (which cannot be included to these 4 regions as Crimea joined Russia with a referandum 9 years ago and without initiating any military conflict.Ukraine signing several agreements with Russia later on about Donetsk and Luhansk defacto accepting the Crimea situation and remembering Crimea after the start of the conflict after 8 years ). Currently it is not much difficult for countries that have economic-security relations with Russia like China, Iran to convince Russia for this kind of an agreement as stake holders. However it is a dead end for Ukraine to pursue the military solution to push back Russian forces militarily trying to destroy them which is unaccaptable for those countries that have security-economic relations with Russia. Especially there is still the possibility of negotiations to end the conflict. Failure of the pursued military solution would also speed up the process of bringing the table back at the end but it will cost Ukraine its future generations. Russia can speed up the process by strategies like in contested areas like Robotyne encirclement-capture instead of total destruction of Ukr manpower by Tos-1-Fab and aiming more for logistics-supply lines-armsdepots to break the fighting capability and limiting the long range strikes unless provoked by direct attacks originating from specific locations. It will show that it is not a battle for survival for Ukraine but Russia has no option but to defend its positions until negotiations take place to settle the issues through negotiations. Negotiations option is much better than rolling the dice several times more with F16s and Atacms for Ukraine and losing its youth in the process.

 

[F-22Raptor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1701934527336038472

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

The Soviet Union dissolved in the 1990s, and some wonder why Putin later focused primarily on Ukraine. To provide some context, NATO was originally formed as a response to the USSR and its allies. However, the USSR ceased to exist in the 1990s, yet NATO continued to operate. NATO then aimed to expand its membership, including countries that were formerly part of the USSR's sphere of influence.
This raises questions about what Russia could have done differently to prevent this situation. Why was NATO so determined to include Ukraine, and what contribution would Ukraine make to NATO's capabilities? Some argue that, similar to the Treaty of Versailles, NATO and the U.S. may have sought to exert pressure on Russia. This is especially noteworthy since Russia was once an ally in defeating the Nazis.

Twisted history coming from Putins desk.
Former Warsaw Pact members and Soviet states slipping out of Russia control took the wise decision to join NATO. That is their right, and NATO welcomes any European country sharing its values. That is their right. Russia has no right to prevent them joining. Russia has acknowledged this in the 1997 Founding Act. NATO refused to allow Ukraine to join (France and Germany said no) because Ukraine has a long way to go to meet the qualification requirement.

So You are severely misguided.